PDA

View Full Version : Christians still sin . . .



VerticalReality
Apr 23rd 2007, 05:32 PM
I hear this all the time and logically it makes sense. However, I'm still trying to grasp this concept in light of what John has to say about sin and the born-again believer.



1 John 3:4-9
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. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.


These seem like pretty strong words from John in regards to the issue of sin in Christians. Many people want to say that this is talking about a state of sin as opposed to a single sinful act, but I'm having a difficult time accepting that opinion in light of the text above. He simply says that he who is born of God does not sin. He doesn't say that he who is born of God does not live in sin. He makes it sound as if someone who is truly born of God doesn't sin period.

Any thoughts on these Scriptures?

SammeyDW
Apr 23rd 2007, 05:43 PM
I was always taught ( and believe ) that he is referring to the desire to willfully commit a sinful act.
Example: A non-believer willfully chooses to be in rebellion against The Lord (and like it :o ).
But a believer can't be in rebellion, and when they sin they will not like it.

VerticalReality
Apr 23rd 2007, 05:55 PM
I was always taught ( and believe ) that he is referring to the desire to willfully commit a sinful act.
Example: A non-believer willfully chooses to be in rebellion against The Lord (and like it :o ).
But a believer can't be in rebellion, and when they sin they will not like it.

I could kind of see this before I could see the "state of sin" opinion. I mean, I'm not going to sit down and willfully watch porn because I know it is sexual immorality and the Lord hates it. However, what about the things that sneak up on you before you know it like anger and so on?

SammeyDW
Apr 23rd 2007, 06:00 PM
Things like anger + acting foolish in anger , etc. :
A believer is more likely to feel repentance over such things.
Where as a non-believer is more likely to make excuses for such behavior.

karenoka27
Apr 23rd 2007, 06:05 PM
Things like anger + acting foolish in anger , etc. :
A believer is more likely to feel repentance over such things.
Where as a non-believer is more likely to make excuses for such behavior.

I would like to add to that..overeating. even believer's make excuse for this one..(I'm talking about myself!)

1 Corinthians 10:31-"Whether therefore you eat or drink or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God."

I am a believer and I believe that gluttony or even eating things above and beyond what my body "needs" may just qualify as sin? I'm not saying that we don't have the liberty to eat and enjoy...but at what point is it sin?

aurora77
Apr 23rd 2007, 06:15 PM
I could kind of see this before I could see the "state of sin" opinion. I mean, I'm not going to sit down and willfully watch porn because I know it is sexual immorality and the Lord hates it. However, what about the things that sneak up on you before you know it like anger and so on?
That's why there are two kinds of sin--mortal and venial. 1 John 5:17 "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly." Mortal sin involves willfully doing something wrong. Venial sins are those things that are wrong, but that do sneak up on us, that we don't do willfully.

diffangle
Apr 23rd 2007, 06:41 PM
Hi VR, :)

I'm going to post the KJV of that passage:


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

5And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin.
6Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him.
7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.
8He 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. 9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


Sin is transgression of the Law/Torah. Look at verse 9 where it says "his seed remaineth in him"... in Mat. 13:23 Messiah says, "But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth ; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty"... the key here for the believer is, in order to remain in Him, to continually be in/heareth His Word and obey it. This helps to keep us from sin. Look at verse 7 where he says, "he that doeth righteousness is righteous"... doeth is an action(ie:hearing and obeying). Many Christians fall into the trap of thinking that they will be fine with simply just believing in Him and don't feel like they need to really rely(hear and obey) on His word and that's where they can start to get in trouble... they lack roots.

Look at the next two verses:


[I]10In 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.
11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

The message we heard from the beginning is the Torah/Law/Instruction which many think was nailed to the cross(which it wasn't).

Souled Out
Apr 23rd 2007, 06:51 PM
I hear this all the time and logically it makes sense. However, I'm still trying to grasp this concept in light of what John has to say about sin and the born-again believer.

These seem like pretty strong words from John in regards to the issue of sin in Christians. Many people want to say that this is talking about a state of sin as opposed to a single sinful act, but I'm having a difficult time accepting that opinion in light of the text above. He simply says that he who is born of God does not sin. He doesn't say that he who is born of God does not live in sin. He makes it sound as if someone who is truly born of God doesn't sin period.

Any thoughts on these Scriptures?

There are two natures at war. The flesh desires what is against the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is against the flesh. As your inner man (Spirit) grows daily, your outer man (flesh) decays and sin happens less, as it is the sin living in that outer man that is the source of sin of anyone born from above. The Spirit doesn't sin. As you become a slave to righteousness and no longer to lawlessness this is the process of sanctification.

VerticalReality
Apr 23rd 2007, 07:06 PM
There are two natures at war. The flesh desires what is against the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is against the flesh. As your inner man (Spirit) grows daily, your outer man (flesh) decays and sin happens less, as it is the sin living in that outer man that is the source of sin of anyone born from above. The Spirit doesn't sin. As you become a slave to righteousness and no longer to lawlessness this is the process of sanctification.

So are you saying that this is talking about our spirit that doesn't sin?

I've heard this before as well, but I don't believe that to be the case as the passage is talking about us "abiding in Him". We must abide in Him so that we do not sin. Our spirit is never not abiding in Him is it? Isn't our spirit seated in the heavenlies already with Him? So it would seem to me that it is our soul that we must make sure "abides" in Him so that it is not corrupted further by the flesh. We must crucify our flesh so that our soul can be sanctified. It is impossible for our spirit to sin . . . that is true. However, I don't believe this passage is talking about our spirit because our spirit, if we are born-again, is automatically abiding in Him.

Souled Out
Apr 23rd 2007, 10:40 PM
So are you saying that this is talking about our spirit that doesn't sin?

I've heard this before as well, but I don't believe that to be the case as the passage is talking about us "abiding in Him". We must abide in Him so that we do not sin. Our spirit is never not abiding in Him is it? Isn't our spirit seated in the heavenlies already with Him? So it would seem to me that it is our soul that we must make sure "abides" in Him so that it is not corrupted further by the flesh. We must crucify our flesh so that our soul can be sanctified. It is impossible for our spirit to sin . . . that is true. However, I don't believe this passage is talking about our spirit because our spirit, if we are born-again, is automatically abiding in Him.

The problem is we do not always abide in Christ while being in Christ. Abiding in Him (John 15:4 & 6, 1 John 2:28), abiding in His love (John 15:10), and abiding in the word (John 15:7) is a choice. When we abide in those things, it is Christ doing those things through us. Thatís why Scripture admonishes us to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh because when we do, it is impossible to sin. But when we do sin, something (or someone) else it at work:

Romans 7:14-16, 20 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

Paul is saying that he has sin living within him, yet when he sins it is not he who sins but the sin that lives within him.

ďAbiding inĒ is not about salvation (unless weíre talking about one abiding in sin), but rather sanctification. This war is going on in the believer while he is ďin Christ.Ē IOW it doesnít change your position within Christ it just changes you. The Spirit is seated in heavenly places, yes, but the flesh is sitting anywhere but. Whichever you choose to follow determines to whom you are a slave Ė sin or righteousness.

TEITZY
Apr 24th 2007, 12:14 AM
I hear this all the time and logically it makes sense. However, I'm still trying to grasp this concept in light of what John has to say about sin and the born-again believer.



These seem like pretty strong words from John in regards to the issue of sin in Christians. Many people want to say that this is talking about a state of sin as opposed to a single sinful act, but I'm having a difficult time accepting that opinion in light of the text above. He simply says that he who is born of God does not sin. He doesn't say that he who is born of God does not live in sin. He makes it sound as if someone who is truly born of God doesn't sin period.

Any thoughts on these Scriptures?

NASB 1 John 3:4-10
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

John starts out by defining what he means by sinning in verse 4 and that is the "practice" or habit or a lifestyle characterised by sin. Then he compares that to the true Christian who "practices righteousness" or one who lives a consistent Godly life. Unbelievers are children of the devil and therefore their lives will reflect that of their father (see John 8:41-44) whereas the lives of true believers should reflect that of their Father in heaven. This is one of the assurances that our salvation is genuine. If we profess to be a Christian and yet live like the devil, John (and the NT in general) provides no assurance for such people. John also uses this same word to describe the lifestyle (walk) of unbelievers in 1 John 1:6:

If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.


Paul also uses a similar combination in Gal 5:16-21:

I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

There could also be the thought of moral perfection in regard to the "seed" or "divine nature" God has placed in every born again believer. When Paul spoke of his own propensity to sin he laid the blame at his flesh or physical body that was still racked by the sin nature:

Rom 7:17-20 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Paul's solution to this problem is found in Chapter 8 where he says "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Cheers
Leigh

jiggyfly
Apr 24th 2007, 12:46 AM
NASB 1 John 3:4-10
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

John starts out by defining what he means by sinning in verse 4 and that is the "practice" or habit or a lifestyle characterised by sin. Then he compares that to the true Christian who "practices righteousness" or one who lives a consistent Godly life. Unbelievers are children of the devil and therefore their lives will reflect that of their father (see John 8:41-44) whereas the lives of true believers should reflect that of their Father in heaven. This is one of the assurances that our salvation is genuine. If we profess to be a Christian and yet live like the devil, John (and the NT in general) provides no assurance for such people. John also uses this same word to describe the lifestyle (walk) of unbelievers in 1 John 1:6:

If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.


Paul also uses a similar combination in Gal 5:16-21:

I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

There could also be the thought of moral perfection in regard to the "seed" or "divine nature" God has placed in every born again believer. When Paul spoke of his own propensity to sin he laid the blame at his flesh or physical body that was still racked by the sin nature:

Rom 7:17-20 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Paul's solution to this problem is found in Chapter 8 where he says "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Cheers
Leigh

Excellent post Teitzy. When we walk after the flesh we are no longer abiding in Christ, Paul said that everyone that is led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. HolySpirit does not lead anyone to sin nor does He tempt anyone to sin.

Scruffy Kid
Apr 24th 2007, 01:47 AM
Leigh's (Teitzy's) post is very helpful: let me just elaborate on those themes.

Christians struggle with sin. We know, from Paul's discussion in Romans 7, that Christians do continue to struggle with sin. "The good that I will to do, I fail to do; but the evil that I hate, that is what I do!" (7:19) "I delight in the law of God after the inner man, but I see another law in my members, warring against my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death!" (7:22-24) Elsewhere Paul speaks of correcting brothers who have fallen into serious sins (I Cor. 5, e.g.) and rebukes lesser sins in many passages. He teaches (Gal. 6:1 ff.) about how to correct those who have fallen, gently and circumspectly. James (5:19-20) makes a similar point "If any among you err ... he who turns the sinner from his ways keeps his soul from death and covers a multitude of sins." Peter (I Pet. 4:8) -- again speaking about life among Christians -- speaks of "love covering a multitude of sins."

I John emphasizes contrasts in the Christian life. The opening difficulty that VR started us with came from I John (3:4-9, and 5:18) however. Here it may be helpful to note John's style, which tends to be very categorical. "I do not write you a new commandment" he says (2:7) but then at once (2:8) says -- "yet I do write you a new commandment." In understanding the message of I John, we must understand that John uses this kind of style, with strong, as it were absolute, pronouncements which (on the verbal surface) contradict one another (cf. Prov. 26:4-5)

John notes that we sin, as well as that we must live free from sin. While John says at 3:4-9 "whoever abides in him does not sin" and so on, John also says (three times in a row, some would argue!) at 1:5-2:2 that "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1:8), and he tells us that "the blood of Jesus ... washes away our sin" (1:7) and that "if we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us" (1:9) and so on.

Our sinfulness and God's purifying love are important, interrelated doctrines. The truth of God purifying us, as we come to dwell more and more with Him, and know and see him (I John 3:2-3) coexists, now in this mortal life, with the truth that we are sinful people. Indeed, these conjoint truths are central to the whole framework of scripture. "Good and upright is the Lord, and therefore He leads sinners in the way" (Ps. 25:8). Jesus washes the feet of the disciples, saying "you are clean -- but not altogether clean" (John 13:10). Paul emphasizes this very duality in Romans 7 & 8. So too John, in this letter, IMO, emphasizes both the ongoing work of Christ in our lives and the present liberation of our lives from sin, and also our sinfulness, and need to continually come back to God for healing, pardon, strength, renewal.

Understanding this is crucial to fellowship with God and one another. Practically speaking, this antinomy (dual-truth) is very important in our Christian walk and fellowship. God does not call us to be lone-ranger Christians, but part of Christ's body. "That which we have seen and heard we declare to you that you may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ" (I John 1:3). And thus the primary effects of Christ's blood washing over us and through us, of walking in the light of Christ's death and resurrection (1:7), is not only that we are washed from our sins, but also that "we have fellowship with one another." This fellowship is crucial, for "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God and God abides in him" (4:16) and "he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen!" (4:20)

We must strive to be pure, yet be aware of our faults, and kind to others who fall. For crucially, as we Christians strive (and rightly so) to walk free from sin we may start to fall into self-righteousness! By fully understanding that we remain selfish, sinners, yet redeemed, and ones in whom God is at work through Christ, we can be strengthened both to receive God's help in walking in righteousness and to retain a lively sense that we are sinners saved by grace, and thus to be gentle and supportive to others who slip up!

StevenC
Apr 24th 2007, 06:28 AM
He doesn't say that he who is born of God does not live in sin. He makes it sound as if someone who is truly born of God doesn't sin period.


1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

I think what he is saying is that a person born of God is not a slave to sin. That the power to defeat sin comes from God and because of God they are free from sin.

-Steven

Steve M
Apr 24th 2007, 12:43 PM
John notes that we sin, as well as that we must live free from sin. While John says at 3:4-9 "whoever abides in him does not sin" and so on, John also says (three times in a row, some would argue!) at 1:5-2:2 that "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1:8), and he tells us that "the blood of Jesus ... washes away our sin" (1:7) and that "if we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive us" (1:9) and so on.

Thanks, SK! I was about to go drag out my Bible and post all those verses.

I really don't think John forgot he said that by the time he got to chapter 3. Instead I think we need to read the book as a whole, starting with John's verses that say Christians still sin, and reading through to where he says to walk with God requires righteousness.

And pick up a few of the verses inbetween, because they sure influence the whole.

1Jo 2:7 - Show Context
Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard.

1Jo 2:8 - Show Context
Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

Is there a contradiction in what John says there about the new command? One minute he says I'm NOT writing you a new command... but, wait, he is!

Plus, finally, my favorite.

1Jo 2:28
And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.

There's an overall theme to John's work, and just jumping in at the end does give you the impression he is saying, be sinless! I know you can! And the whole book is an excellent instruction manual on how to resist sin, and press on, and continue with God.

1Jo 3:16 - Show Context
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

1Jo 3:18 - Show Context
Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

In a way, the very fact that John felt the need to tell us to love one another with actions and truth means that stopping sin in our lives is NOT automatic. It requires an effort on our part!

Anyway, just some quick thought...

Philip dT
Apr 24th 2007, 01:13 PM
What is sin in essence?

I would say that sin is primarily defined by your nature. If you are not reborn, you are still in sin and in the flesh.

(Rom 7)

If you are reborn, you are not in sin and in the flesh any more.

Rom 8:9 "But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His."

Although you still do sinful deeds you cannot sin as far as the core of your (newly created) nature / being is concerned. In that sense we cannot sin any more. That is connected to your newly, perfectly created identity in Christ.

So in a sense one could say that sin is not primarilly what you do, but who you are. Evil people can do good deeds but remain inherently sinful. Christians can still sin but remain newly, perfectly created in Christ.

As I understand it, man is spirit, soul (mind, will, emotions) and body (e.g. 1 Thess 5:17).

When you are not reborn, your spirit is indwelt and ruled by the flesh, but when you are reborn, your spirit is indwelt and ruled by the Spirit. But you still have a soul (mind, will, emotions) and a body that are in this world and still has to change from its old patterns, and be renewed continually.

egrow
Apr 24th 2007, 05:24 PM
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

I think what he is saying is that a person born of God is not a slave to sin. That the power to defeat sin comes from God and because of God they are free from sin.

-Steven
That Sir, is reasoning, 1 Jn. 3:6-10, 1 Jn. 5:18 and Romans chapters 6, 7 & 8 explain, so that we don't have to THINK. If we serve righteousness we are FREE from Sin, what does FREE from sin mean? 1 Jn. 3:9, says If we are born-again we CAN NOT sin, do you REALLY think He made a mistake when he wrote that?
The problem that religious teachings have caused, is that everyone who thinks they are born-again can't give the written scriptures to show they are, because while you are in the process (In Christ) we can get forgiveness, IF we repent or STOP IT!
But when you are TRULY born again, you CAN NOT sin, it is written!
Many, many churches tell people they are born-again after saying a pray, which NO where in the bible can you get salvation with a prayer, and then told don't let anyone tell you, you are not saved, which they associate with Born-Again. To be born-again is like Paul said, NOT that he had attained to the Ressurection. Rasied a New Creature or Born Again when the flesh is dead then ONLY then can you be raise with Christ. Rev. 21:7, when you overcome the world which is the lusts of the flesh. Until then we are in the process "Acts 4:12", His NAME (Rev. 19:13).
BY the way, Anything done NOT in Faith is Sin, and NOT what ther churches say is Sin!

humbled
Apr 24th 2007, 07:20 PM
I hear this all the time and logically it makes sense. However, I'm still trying to grasp this concept in light of what John has to say about sin and the born-again believer.



These seem like pretty strong words from John in regards to the issue of sin in Christians. Many people want to say that this is talking about a state of sin as opposed to a single sinful act, but I'm having a difficult time accepting that opinion in light of the text above. He simply says that he who is born of God does not sin. He doesn't say that he who is born of God does not live in sin. He makes it sound as if someone who is truly born of God doesn't sin period.

Any thoughts on these Scriptures?John also says that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. And that if we do sin, we have an Advocate with the Father.

Now why say those things if sin is supposed to be non-existent in the life of a believer?

Owen
Apr 24th 2007, 11:36 PM
1 John 1:8 is not really talking about the act of sin, but the predisposition to sin. In other words, the propensity for sinning, but not the act of sin in and of itself. This is shown because in verse 7 our sin is spoken of as being cleansed, and the taking away of sinful predispositions and not the act of sin itself per se (it can not be the removal of guilt because the word is used alongside forgiveness in verse 9, therefore that would be redundant).

If we say that we must still sin, then we are not freed from sin but still slaves of sin. Instead though, the Christian sins not because they have a sinful predisposition, but because they choose to sin. The nature serves as a temptation but does not control them.

Christians are not to sin, nor must they sin. They are not bound to do it. But all Christians have areas in which they have to be wary of which they are predisposed to sin if they do not watch themselves.

GothicAngel
Apr 25th 2007, 12:52 PM
1 John 1:8 is not really talking about the act of sin, but the predisposition to sin. In other words, the propensity for sinning, but not the act of sin in and of itself. This is shown because in verse 7 our sin is spoken of as being cleansed, and the taking away of sinful predispositions and not the act of sin itself per se (it can not be the removal of guilt because the word is used alongside forgiveness in verse 9, therefore that would be redundant).

If we say that we must still sin, then we are not freed from sin but still slaves of sin. Instead though, the Christian sins not because they have a sinful predisposition, but because they choose to sin. The nature serves as a temptation but does not control them.

Is this true all the time? That a Christian is never bound by sin or controlled by his own desires?


Christians are not to sin, nor must they sin. They are not bound to do it. But all Christians have areas in which they have to be wary of which they are predisposed to sin if they do not watch themselves.

ProjectPeter
Apr 25th 2007, 01:32 PM
Is this true all the time? That a Christian is never bound by sin or controlled by his own desires?
Can a freed person be free and yet still bound?

Owen
Apr 25th 2007, 02:05 PM
Is this true all the time? That a Christian is never bound by sin or controlled by his own desires?

If a Christian is bound to sin, who or what forces them to sin?

Souled Out
Apr 25th 2007, 07:23 PM
If a Christian is bound to sin, who or what forces them to sin?

That body of death that Paul rails about in Romans 7. As long as we're in these corruptible dust suits, sin happens. I'm just glad that where my sin abounds, His grace also abounds.

Owen
Apr 25th 2007, 07:44 PM
That body of death that Paul rails about in Romans 7. As long as we're in these corruptible dust suits, sin happens. I'm just glad that where my sin abounds, His grace also abounds.

Haven't we died to sin and have crucified the flesh? Christ hasn't set our minds free from obeying the law of sin in the flesh? Doesn't 7:24-25 show that Christ has set us free from the body of sin? Hasn't God given us the ability to overcome any temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13)? And yet what this sounds like is that sin hasn't died, the flesh hasn't been crucified, our minds haven't been freed, Christ has not freed us from the body, and that we can not overcome some temptations.

What you just said is that Christians are still enslaved to sin. Romans 7:14-23 though describes the Jew before conversion and thus salvation. Romans 8:2 says that Christians have been set free from law of sin, but what you are saying is that we in fact are not free from sin.

There is a struggle yes, but I am not bound to sin. Any sin you or I or any other Christian commits is because we are willfully disobedient or ignorant. It isn't some sinful natures fault that we can say to put our conscience at ease.

Stefen
Apr 25th 2007, 07:55 PM
Haven't we died to sin and have crucified the flesh? Christ hasn't set our minds free from obeying the law of sin in the flesh? Doesn't 7:24-25 show that Christ has set us free from the body of sin? Hasn't God given us the ability to overcome any temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13)? And yet what this sounds like is that sin hasn't died, the flesh hasn't been crucified, our minds haven't been freed, Christ has not freed us from the body, and that we can not overcome some temptations.

What you just said is that Christians are still enslaved to sin. Romans 7:14-23 though describes the Jew before conversion and thus salvation. Romans 8:2 says that Christians have been set free from law of sin, but what you are saying is that we in fact are not free from sin.

There is a struggle yes, but I am not bound to sin. Any sin you or I or any other Christian commits is because we are willfully disobedient or ignorant. It isn't some sinful natures fault that we can say to put our conscience at ease.

Amen Amen Amen, Bless you for speaking the truth! If the Spirit of the living God is in us, then we can have been set free from the wages of sin and The Bondage of SIN. Allelujah Father!

Souled Out
Apr 26th 2007, 12:25 AM
Haven't we died to sin and have crucified the flesh? Well I didnít when I just yelled at my daughter. But I continue working at it because Christ died so that I can. I keep 1 Peter 2:24 in mind as I do because it tells me that he died so that I may and live to righteousness.


Christ hasn't set our minds free from obeying the law of sin in the flesh? Yes, and for that Iím grateful.


Doesn't 7:24-25 show that Christ has set us free from the body of sin? Not exactly. ďWretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.Ē

Because of this Scritpure I know what was at work in me with my daughter. I was serving the law of sin with my flesh. Now that I know I chose serving sin over serving Christ, I shall do better because the thought of that is horrifying and eye-opening.



Hasn't God given us the ability to overcome any temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13)? Yes and if He hadnít I wouldnít have a fighting chance. Iím tempted several times throughout the day, especially when Iím in traffic or get frustrated when things donít go right in my life. Just as this passage says, he will not allow me to be tempted beyond what I can handle. Without him Iíd have no hope of ever being and doing better than this.


And yet what this sounds like is that sin hasn't died, the flesh hasn't been crucifiedÖ Sometimes itís not. I didnít become perfected the moment I got saved; that was just the beginning of my walk and process of sanctification. It is a journey and a process. I would say it more resembles a slow burn rather than a big bang.


our minds haven't been freed, Yes, but only when I renew the spirit of my mind and donít become a slave to sin. As Ephesians 4:17-32 says, I have to let God do His work in me. I do have a part to play and decisions to make. Again, I have to work at choosing righteousness over sin.



Christ has not freed us from the body, and that we can not overcome some temptations. No, still got the same body I had when I met Him. Same desires. Same lusts of the flesh. What has changed however is my ability to resist those things and you know what, a lot of the times I am able to. Bless God! I however did not choose this path when I yelled at my daughter for keeping her room in such a mess.


What you just said is that Christians are still enslaved to sin. I didnít say that at all and I donít believe that in the slightest. What I did do, however, was acknowledge that we still sin and that even though we may fall short, we are not condemned because his mercy endureth forever and He forgives me when I am repentant.

I no longer live in condemnation doing things attempting to pay a debt that I no longer owe. Sin is not simplistic in the least and I donít treat it as such.



Romans 7:14-23 though describes the Jew before conversion and thus salvation. Romans 8:2 says that Christians have been set free from law of sin, but what you are saying is that we in fact are not free from sin. I would say it describes any man, Jew or Gentile. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and of death. This means I was in a constant state of death because of my sin, but now I have the Helper and an Advocate with the Father.

We are humans, mother, fathers, sons, daughters, aunts and employees living out that Book, so I canít possibly take wholeheartedly some scriptures at the exclusion of others. That would leave me with partial truth and hands thrown up in the air asking God why I just canít do right no matter how hard I try.

As John says WE ARE ALL WITH SIN. Not only that, he says "in all things we offend," and part of our chastisement as Sons of God is to be made to see our sin. What a humbling experience that is. And, God wants humble people. So if we offend in all things, then obviously by the Spirit, God will show us our sin, and in that we go to Him, give it up and let Him continue to perfect us.


There is a struggle yes, but I am not bound to sin. And neither is anyone else with His Spirit and I agree that yes there absolutely is struggle. That is my point in saying all of this. The Christ-life is not an easy one.



Any sin you or I or any other Christian commits is because we are willfully disobedient or ignorant. Yes, this is at work, but I also acknowledge what is the source of that willful disobedience and maybe even ignorance.



It isn't some sinful natures fault that we can say to put our conscience at ease. Ephesians 4:22-24
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Colossians 3:8-10
8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; 10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

I know that there are two natures at war within us, and for me to find comfort in my sin nature to ease my conscience would make the Cross of no effect in my life as Christ is our only source of comfort.

If you personally are not dealing with a flesh nature then the Son must already be revealed in you and your process of sanctification is complete. Youíd be the first of which I've ever known. I myself have a ways to go yet, but He is continuing to do a good work in me.

ProjectPeter
Apr 26th 2007, 12:32 AM
Well I didnít when I just yelled at my daughter. But I continue working at it because Christ died so that I can. I keep 1 Peter 2:24 in mind as I do because it tells me that he died so that I may and live to righteousness.

Yes, and for that Iím grateful.

Not exactly. ďWretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.Ē

Because of this Scritpure I know what was at work in me with my daughter. I was serving the law of sin with my flesh. Now that I know I chose serving sin over serving Christ, I shall do better because the thought of that is horrifying and eye-opening.

Yes and if He hadnít I wouldnít have a fighting chance. Iím tempted several times throughout the day, especially when Iím in traffic or get frustrated when things donít go right in my life. Just as this passage says, he will not allow me to be tempted beyond what I can handle. Without him Iíd have no hope of ever being and doing better than this.

Sometimes itís not. I didnít become perfected the moment I got saved; that was just the beginning of my walk and process of sanctification. It is a journey and a process. I would say it more resembles a slow burn rather than a big bang.

Yes, but only when I renew the spirit of my mind and donít become a slave to sin. As Ephesians 4:17-32 says, I have to let God do His work in me. I do have a part to play and decisions to make. Again, I have to work at choosing righteousness over sin.

No, still got the same body I had when I met Him. Same desires. Same lusts of the flesh. What has changed however is my ability to resist those things and you know what, a lot of the times I am able to. Bless God! I however did not choose this path when I yelled at my daughter for keeping her room in such a mess.

I didnít say that at all and I donít believe that in the slightest. What I did do, however, was acknowledge that we still sin and that even though we may fall short, we are not condemned because his mercy endureth forever and He forgives me when I am repentant.

I no longer live in condemnation doing things attempting to pay a debt that I no longer owe. Sin is not simplistic in the least and I donít treat it as such.

I would say it describes any man, Jew or Gentile. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and of death. This means I was in a constant state of death because of my sin, but now I have the Helper and an Advocate with the Father.

We are humans, mother, fathers, sons, daughters, aunts and employees living out that Book, so I canít possibly take wholeheartedly some scriptures at the exclusion of others. That would leave me with partial truth and hands thrown up in the air asking God why I just canít do right no matter how hard I try.

As John says WE ARE ALL WITH SIN. Not only that, he says "in all things we offend," and part of our chastisement as Sons of God is to be made to see our sin. What a humbling experience that is. And, God wants humble people. So if we offend in all things, then obviously by the Spirit, God will show us our sin, and in that we go to Him, give it up and let Him continue to perfect us.

And neither is anyone else with His Spirit and I agree that yes there absolutely is struggle. That is my point in saying all of this. The Christ-life is not an easy one.

Yes, this is at work, but I also acknowledge what is the source of that willful disobedience and maybe even ignorance.

Ephesians 4:22-24
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Colossians 3:8-10
8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; 10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

I know that there are two natures at war within us, and for me to find comfort in my sin nature to ease my conscience would make the Cross of no effect in my life as Christ is our only source of comfort.

If you personally are not dealing with a flesh nature then the Son must already be revealed in you and your process of sanctification is complete. Youíd be the first of which I've ever known. I myself have a ways to go yet, but He is continuing to do a good work in me.



Sounds like your daughter deserved a little yelling at. ;) Not sure why you would consider that sin though. That would be the same as saying God is sinning when God disciplines us and sometimes that discipline comes in much worse forms than getting chewed out. Now if you cussed her out and whatnot then ok... but I sort of figure you didn't do that. So why would that be sin?

Souled Out
Apr 26th 2007, 01:12 AM
Sounds like your daughter deserved a little yelling at. ;) Not sure why you would consider that sin though. That would be the same as saying God is sinning when God disciplines us and sometimes that discipline comes in much worse forms than getting chewed out. Now if you cussed her out and whatnot then ok... but I sort of figure you didn't do that. So why would that be sin?

Yeah, her little behind deserved some of it, but I gave her an extra dose due to frustration with other stuff going on in my life. I didn't quite go Alec Baldwin but it was close. I don't imagine Jesus would have done what I did as He didn't let the cares of this world get to Him. I'm still a work in progress.

GothicAngel
Apr 26th 2007, 01:55 PM
Can a freed person be free and yet still bound?

Are Christians really completely free from sin?


If a Christian is bound to sin, who or what forces them to sin?

Not forced... I guess I have used the wrong word, sorry. Who or what infulences them?... Well the devil tempts us, for starters. Course what does that t shirt say, "Lead me not into temptation I can find it by myself." Concupisense and a weak human nature have been part of us since Adam and Eve. And I dont think being a Chritsian will take that away. I do think that only Christians can reach perfection, but I doubt many if any do.

humbled
Apr 26th 2007, 05:06 PM
Are Christians really completely free from sin?
Indeed

John 8:36
"So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Sin no longer has any power over us. Read Romans 7:1-6. We are literally SET FREE from the Law of sin because Christ BECAME sin and DIED. And just as a wife (ie the church) is no longer bound to a dead husband (Christ as sin), we are freed from that Law to live and be wedded to righteousness. And if we truly have the Spirit of Christ living in us, then we are wedded to Christ and righteousness.

Sin is now spiritual adultery. And it is contrary to our nature.

This is what I am learning right now.

God bless



I do think that only Christians can reach perfection, but I doubt many if any do.Indeed.

None will be sinless in this life. We will not be perfected in this life, but glorification comes afterwards (Romans 8:30). But Paul speaks of it as if it has already happened, so it is a certainty for the believer, the elect, the called. What amazing grace and love He has for us that He would die for us while we are sinners! And if He died for us while we were sinners, how much more will He preserve us when we are in Christ?

If you (generically) are not growing and changing then you may want to make your calling and election sure, however. Sanctification is evidence of genuine conversion.

Grace to you

Owen
Apr 26th 2007, 06:20 PM
Are Christians really completely free from sin?

As a Christian we are free never to sin again.


Not forced... I guess I have used the wrong word, sorry. Who or what infulences them?... Well the devil tempts us, for starters. Course what does that t shirt say, "Lead me not into temptation I can find it by myself." Concupisense and a weak human nature have been part of us since Adam and Eve. And I dont think being a Chritsian will take that away. I do think that only Christians can reach perfection, but I doubt many if any do.

I am not saying that temptation is gone (although as we mature it is cleansed from us), but we sin because we choose to. God has given us the strength to overcome any temptation, or 1 Corinthians 10:13 isn't true. Every sin is a choice for the Christian. When we sin we one could have very well be totally obedient and resisted the temptation.

The temptation will remain, but every sin we commit, is totally the fault of our own choice to sin and not because of some sinful nature that can not be controlled.

humbled
Apr 26th 2007, 06:25 PM
The temptation will remain, but every sin we commit, is totally the fault of our own choice to sin and not because of some sinful nature that can not be controlled.This is true only for the Christian (Romans 8)

The man in the flesh is UNABLE to fulfill the Law because of the weakness of their flesh. But if we are freed from that weakness because of Christ, then we have the very same Spirit which defeated sin in Him.

Owen
Apr 26th 2007, 06:29 PM
This is true only for the Christian (Romans 8)

The man in the flesh is UNABLE to fulfill the Law because of the weakness of their flesh. But if we are freed from that weakness because of Christ, then we have the very same Spirit which defeated sin in Him.

I am not talking about the person who isn't a Christian. This topic has been about whether a Christian must sin or not. I have not stated anything about the unconverted man.

Owen
Apr 26th 2007, 06:59 PM
Well I didn’t when I just yelled at my daughter. But I continue working at it because Christ died so that I can. I keep 1 Peter 2:24 in mind as I do because it tells me that he died so that I may and live to righteousness.

Paul doesn't say we attain that point. He speaks in Romans 6:6 as a reality, something that is achieved. If you sin when you yelled at your daughter, it was because you chose to do it, but you were free not to.


Yes, and for that I’m grateful.

Then you don't have to obey sin anymore EVER.


Not exactly. “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.”

Looks at Romans 7:22-25:

For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

In verse 23, Paul says that the the law in his body is waging war with his mind and making him a prisoner to the law of sin. This is bondage spoken of in Romans 7:14. This leads to the question of how can he be freed. Then there is a thanks to Jesus Christ, whom is the answer to the freedom. The conclusion from that is (based upon "so then") is that Jesus Christ set us free from the sin of the flesh so that our minds (which controls the body) can then
be free from sin which it was enslaved too.


Because of this Scritpure I know what was at work in me with my daughter. I was serving the law of sin with my flesh. Now that I know I chose serving sin over serving Christ, I shall do better because the thought of that is horrifying and eye-opening.

You made a choice to sin when you very well could have not. So you sinned and it wasn't because of the flesh. You were free from it's control (and only faced its force as a temptation), so the sin is the cause of your willingness to disobey and not some control over you. Would you disagree?


Yes and if He hadn’t I wouldn’t have a fighting chance. I’m tempted several times throughout the day, especially when I’m in traffic or get frustrated when things don’t go right in my life. Just as this passage says, he will not allow me to be tempted beyond what I can handle. Without him I’d have no hope of ever being and doing better than this.

And you can do better right now. You can go without sinning again. That is what Christ has equipped us to do. He has equipped us to not sin ever, if only we would submit in the face of temptation. So we are to do better right now and not sin again, and we can do that if we are willing. But if we do sin even once, its because we chose to spite God and can not blame it on having a sinful nature.


Sometimes it’s not. I didn’t become perfected the moment I got saved; that was just the beginning of my walk and process of sanctification. It is a journey and a process. I would say it more resembles a slow burn rather than a big bang.

I was perfected (or made complete) at the moment of salvation that I could never sin again if I was willing to not. Now I was not freed from the temptation of sin, but I was free to not fall because of temptation. Sanctification is both complete and progressive. Its complete in that my mind is totally freed and I have been enabled to be TOTALLY obedient at all times in all ways, and progressive in that the impulse of sin is being taken away from me that obedience is easier than it was the day before.


Yes, but only when I renew the spirit of my mind and don’t become a slave to sin. As Ephesians 4:17-32 says, I have to let God do His work in me. I do have a part to play and decisions to make. Again, I have to work at choosing righteousness over sin.

If one is a slave of sin, then one will die (Romans 6:16). If become a slave to sin, then you have fallen from God's grace.

But there is no real work that must be done to obey. It takes work to make the temptation weaker, but obedience in the face of temptation takes no work other than a willingness to reject ones fleshy passions. Fighting the thoughts that come into the mind takes work, but not follow through with those thoughts is simple enough.


No, still got the same body I had when I met Him. Same desires. Same lusts of the flesh. What has changed however is my ability to resist those things and you know what, a lot of the times I am able to. Bless God! I however did not choose this path when I yelled at my daughter for keeping her room in such a mess.

What you are doing is saying yeah, I chose to do it, but trying to take away your own fault by blaming it on something else. Its like a child saying they chose to do something but then blamed it on peer pressure in order to take away the feelings of guilt for their actions.

Could you have chosen to not yell at your daughter? Is so, then it doesn't matter what the flesh did, you were the one who chose it, not the flesh. The passions tempted you, but you chose to do it.


I didn’t say that at all and I don’t believe that in the slightest. What I did do, however, was acknowledge that we still sin and that even though we may fall short, we are not condemned because his mercy endureth forever and He forgives me when I am repentant.

Nowhere have I stated that we are condemned because of one sin because God is slow to get angry (though if we continue in disobedience, we will be condemned). All I am saying is that our act of sin isn't to be blamed on some temptation or flesh, but it is solely on the shoulders of our own choice to sin when we very well could have not sinned.

Too often times we talk about the flesh in order to ease our conscience for our own sin. We go further than just merely acknowledging its battle against us just to be aware. We do that so that we may feel at ease for what we have done by shifting at least some of the blame from our conscious choice to an unconscious force that works against us. And then we say there is no hope, that we must sin and thus we are not as vigilant as we should be against it. A person who feels it is hopeless to do something will not try to accomplish what they feel is hopeless. A person who believes they can not live totally sin free will not truly try to live sin free.


I would say it describes any man, Jew or Gentile. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and of death. This means I was in a constant state of death because of my sin, but now I have the Helper and an Advocate with the Father.

It has principles that apply to anyone, but it is directly speaking about the Jew under the Law who is coming close to the point of conversion by recognizing their sinfulness.


We are humans, mother, fathers, sons, daughters, aunts and employees living out that Book, so I can’t possibly take wholeheartedly some scriptures at the exclusion of others. That would leave me with partial truth and hands thrown up in the air asking God why I just can’t do right no matter how hard I try.

What have I told you that is contrary to any part of Scripture?


As John says WE ARE ALL WITH SIN. Not only that, he says "in all things we offend," and part of our chastisement as Sons of God is to be made to see our sin. What a humbling experience that is. And, God wants humble people. So if we offend in all things, then obviously by the Spirit, God will show us our sin, and in that we go to Him, give it up and let Him continue to perfect us.

John says we are still with the impulse to sin, the inclination to disobedience. It does not refer to the acts of sin, but rather the temptation presented that is cleansed from us.


And neither is anyone else with His Spirit and I agree that yes there absolutely is struggle. That is my point in saying all of this. The Christ-life is not an easy one.

It is an easy one to follow through with, its just the results we are not too happy about. It is easy for me not to sin. It is easy for me obey totally. It isn't like there is some force that holds us back while we are trying ti obey. Its just I don't like rejecting myself and thus I give in. But if we truly rejected ourself, it would be of no difficulty.


Yes, this is at work, but I also acknowledge what is the source of that willful disobedience and maybe even ignorance.

So then, you could not sin anymore if you stopped willfully disobey and learned so as not to be ignorant.


Ephesians 4:22-24
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Colossians 3:8-10
8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; 10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

Whats stopping you from being always putting on the new man?


I know that there are two natures at war within us, and for me to find comfort in my sin nature to ease my conscience would make the Cross of no effect in my life as Christ is our only source of comfort.

If you personally are not dealing with a flesh nature then the Son must already be revealed in you and your process of sanctification is complete. You’d be the first of which I've ever known. I myself have a ways to go yet, but He is continuing to do a good work in me.

I have not said I don't deal with a flesh nature. What I have said is that we could very well not sin, but the only reason we don't is because we are willfully disobedient. It isn't because we have a flesh nature. Its because we gave in and we have no excuse WHATSOEVER. We could be sinless while battling the flesh nature, but we have not because we are not truly willing to be totally obedient.

Souled Out
Apr 26th 2007, 09:52 PM
Paul doesn't say we attain that point. He speaks in Romans 6:6 as a reality, something that is achieved. If you sin when you yelled at your daughter, it was because you chose to do it, but you were free not to.

Then you don't have to obey sin anymore EVER.

Looks at Romans 7:22-25:

In verse 23, Paul says that the the law in his body is waging war with his mind and making him a prisoner to the law of sin. This is bondage spoken of in Romans 7:14. This leads to the question of how can he be freed. Then there is a thanks to Jesus Christ, whom is the answer to the freedom. The conclusion from that is (based upon "so then") is that Jesus Christ set us free from the sin of the flesh so that our minds (which controls the body) can then
be free from sin which it was enslaved too.

You made a choice to sin when you very well could have not. So you sinned and it wasn't because of the flesh. You were free from it's control (and only faced its force as a temptation), so the sin is the cause of your willingness to disobey and not some control over you. Would you disagree?

And you can do better right now. You can go without sinning again. That is what Christ has equipped us to do. He has equipped us to not sin ever, if only we would submit in the face of temptation. So we are to do better right now and not sin again, and we can do that if we are willing. But if we do sin even once, its because we chose to spite God and can not blame it on having a sinful nature.

I was perfected (or made complete) at the moment of salvation that I could never sin again if I was willing to not. Now I was not freed from the temptation of sin, but I was free to not fall because of temptation. Sanctification is both complete and progressive. Its complete in that my mind is totally freed and I have been enabled to be TOTALLY obedient at all times in all ways, and progressive in that the impulse of sin is being taken away from me that obedience is easier than it was the day before.

If one is a slave of sin, then one will die (Romans 6:16). If become a slave to sin, then you have fallen from God's grace.

But there is no real work that must be done to obey. It takes work to make the temptation weaker, but obedience in the face of temptation takes no work other than a willingness to reject ones fleshy passions. Fighting the thoughts that come into the mind takes work, but not follow through with those thoughts is simple enough.

What you are doing is saying yeah, I chose to do it, but trying to take away your own fault by blaming it on something else. Its like a child saying they chose to do something but then blamed it on peer pressure in order to take away the feelings of guilt for their actions.

Could you have chosen to not yell at your daughter? Is so, then it doesn't matter what the flesh did, you were the one who chose it, not the flesh. The passions tempted you, but you chose to do it.

Nowhere have I stated that we are condemned because of one sin because God is slow to get angry (though if we continue in disobedience, we will be condemned). All I am saying is that our act of sin isn't to be blamed on some temptation or flesh, but it is solely on the shoulders of our own choice to sin when we very well could have not sinned.

Too often times we talk about the flesh in order to ease our conscience for our own sin. We go further than just merely acknowledging its battle against us just to be aware. We do that so that we may feel at ease for what we have done by shifting at least some of the blame from our conscious choice to an unconscious force that works against us. And then we say there is no hope, that we must sin and thus we are not as vigilant as we should be against it. A person who feels it is hopeless to do something will not try to accomplish what they feel is hopeless. A person who believes they can not live totally sin free will not truly try to live sin free.

It has principles that apply to anyone, but it is directly speaking about the Jew under the Law who is coming close to the point of conversion by recognizing their sinfulness.

What have I told you that is contrary to any part of Scripture?

John says we are still with the impulse to sin, the inclination to disobedience. It does not refer to the acts of sin, but rather the temptation presented that is cleansed from us.

It is an easy one to follow through with, its just the results we are not too happy about. It is easy for me not to sin. It is easy for me obey totally. It isn't like there is some force that holds us back while we are trying ti obey. Its just I don't like rejecting myself and thus I give in. But if we truly rejected ourself, it would be of no difficulty.

So then, you could not sin anymore if you stopped willfully disobey and learned so as not to be ignorant.

Whats stopping you from being always putting on the new man?

I have not said I don't deal with a flesh nature. What I have said is that we could very well not sin, but the only reason we don't is because we are willfully disobedient. It isn't because we have a flesh nature. Its because we gave in and we have no excuse WHATSOEVER. We could be sinless while battling the flesh nature, but we have not because we are not truly willing to be totally obedient.

We are in agreement about the part that Christ plays in sanctification, but it seems we part ways where the flesh is concerned. I acknowledge that there are two natures at war and that the nature of the flesh and the nature of the spirit are in direct opposition.

If we offer ourselves to the flesh, we because slaves to sin. If we offer ourselves to the spirit we become slaves to righteousness and amazingly enough, it results in sanctification. The flesh is very much real, but it is not our reality. Itís important to dovetail this war with the sanctification process because they are intimately linked.

You mentioned obedience. Being made into the image of Christ is about obedience but itís not just about growing in obedience. Itís also about growing in faith, love, trust, patience and all the fruit of the Spirit as it is those things which we will take into eternity.

But I do see agreement between us for the most part.

GothicAngel
Apr 26th 2007, 09:55 PM
As a Christian we are free never to sin again.



I am not saying that temptation is gone (although as we mature it is cleansed from us), but we sin because we choose to. God has given us the strength to overcome any temptation, or 1 Corinthians 10:13 isn't true. Every sin is a choice for the Christian. When we sin we one could have very well be totally obedient and resisted the temptation.

The temptation will remain, but every sin we commit, is totally the fault of our own choice to sin and not because of some sinful nature that can not be controlled.
But everyone, including non Christians, can resist temptation...

Parax
Apr 26th 2007, 10:01 PM
The Spirit is willing but the flesh is very weak.


Non-christians may well be able to resist temptation, but without guidance from the Holy Spirit, they may not be able to discern sin so easily. They also may not consider 'sin' at all.

We have the guidance of the Holy Spirit to keep us in His will. Agreed, we don't always listen and we do fall into sin (frequently, I'd warrent) but Jesus' sacrifice and God's grace is sufficient for us.

There's a lovely verse on hangings in my church which is very edifying

"My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness"

Sometimes I feel that weakness is all I have, and you know, God can have it! Then He can show His awesome power.

Owen
Apr 26th 2007, 10:20 PM
But everyone, including non Christians, can resist temptation...

I would say non-Christians can at times avoid individual moments of temptation, but they do not have the strength that God gives that strengthens Christians to avoid temptation at all times no matter what the situation.

Thats how I understand the Biblical themes of slavery and freedom in conjunction with experience.

Owen
Apr 26th 2007, 10:31 PM
We are in agreement about the part that Christ plays in sanctification, but it seems we part ways where the flesh is concerned. I acknowledge that there are two natures at war and that the nature of the flesh and the nature of the spirit are in direct opposition.

There is a battle of natures. I do not deny that. But I would say the nature of our mind, if we are truly Christians, is that of righteousness. And since the mind controls who we are and what we do, the flesh nature can be resisted all the time and we are not destined to sin again.


If we offer ourselves to the flesh, we because slaves to sin.

If we are a slave of sin, then we will die (Romans 6:16). I am not a slave of sin and nor am I if I give in to sin. That is my own will. Slavery to sin is when one is controlled by sin, not when we willingly sin on occasion.


If we offer ourselves to the spirit we become slaves to righteousness and amazingly enough,

As Christians we are slaves to righteousness, even if we occasionally disobey. Slavery does not dictate that a person will be 100% obedient.


it results in sanctification. The flesh is very much real, but it is not our reality. It’s important to dovetail this war with the sanctification process because they are intimately linked.

Sanctification comes as we submits our members of the body to righteousness (romans 6:19). Thus this undoes the habit of sinfulness in the flesh (though habits do not control but tempt) and creates more righteous habits and in this way we are sanctified.


You mentioned obedience. Being made into the image of Christ is about obedience but it’s not just about growing in obedience. It’s also about growing in faith, love, trust, patience and all the fruit of the Spirit as it is those things which we will take into eternity.

Faith, love, trust, patience, and all the fruit of the Spirit is a result of obedience and those things are obedience. Submitting to the Spirit brings about those fruits.

We do agree to some degree, but either we are speaking different words with the same meaning or we do have some definite differences, though subtle. And in the end, what I am passionate against (you may or may not be like this) are people who reduce the gravity of their sin by blaming it on the flesh (and thus take the feelings of personal guilt away and blame it on some nature they feel they can not control) or don't try to live sin free because they say they can not.

GothicAngel
Apr 26th 2007, 11:52 PM
I would say non-Christians can at times avoid individual moments of temptation, but they do not have the strength that God gives that strengthens Christians to avoid temptation at all times no matter what the situation.

Thats how I understand the Biblical themes of slavery and freedom in conjunction with experience.
Hm...

Where in the bible do you say its says non believers cannot always resist temptaion

Stefen
Apr 27th 2007, 12:22 AM
God is light and in Him there is NO darkness. If Gods pirit is in you can you really sin? If you walk by the fact that you are one with God through Jesus do you really sin?

ProjectPeter
Apr 27th 2007, 12:24 AM
Hm...

Where in the bible do you say its says non believers cannot always resist temptaion
Ok... first let me ask. Are you serious?

GothicAngel
Apr 27th 2007, 12:24 AM
God is light and in Him there is NO darkness. If Gods pirit is in you can you really sin? If you walk by the fact that you are one with God through Jesus do you really sin?
I sin... dont you?

GothicAngel
Apr 27th 2007, 12:25 AM
Ok... first let me ask. Are you serious?
I hate it when people ask me that kind of stuff... I always answer wrong...

yes I am seorius

ProjectPeter
Apr 27th 2007, 12:46 AM
I hate it when people ask me that kind of stuff... I always answer wrong...

yes I am seorius
Tell me where in your Bible that you read where a man, without Christ, can be free from sin? If they can resist temptation then they won't sin because it is temptation that gives birth to sin.

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

GothicAngel
Apr 27th 2007, 12:54 AM
Tell me where in your Bible that you read where a man, without Christ, can be free from sin?

Hm... is that what I said... I dont think anybody can do anything w/o Him... also I asked where in the bible it syas they cant alwasy resist


If they can resist temptation then they won't sin because it is temptation that gives birth to sin.

Well, they do sin, so do we Christians, they also avoid sin


James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

ProjectPeter
Apr 27th 2007, 01:07 AM
Hm... is that what I said... I dont think anybody can do anything w/o Him... also I asked where in the bible it syas they cant alwasy resist



Well, they do sin, so do we Christians, they also avoid sin
The very concept of an unbeliever always resisting temptation (which also means they don't sin) is foreign. The teaching in Scripture is so totally contrary to that... so much so that it doesn't have to say those exact words. If you are looking for words that say that specifically then that's going to get you into a lot of trouble with a lot of things. But to say they can always resist temptation is totally contrary to Scripture.

As to Christian's avoiding sin... tell me something. Just because you don't avoid it or I don't avoid it... does that mean that it is impossible for us to avoid it? Not speaking temptation here... speaking of sin. I think Owen has made a rather good case here and I am thinking folks are getting hung up on religious speak because of their own experiences etc.

Here is a challenge to you (an everyone for that matter). Go back and read what he has said again and respond to the points he makes. Show where they are in error biblically. That would be interesting to see. ;)

GothicAngel
Apr 27th 2007, 01:10 AM
The very concept of an unbeliever always resisting temptation (which also means they don't sin) is foreign. The teaching in Scripture is so totally contrary to that... so much so that it doesn't have to say those exact words. If you are looking for words that say that specifically then that's going to get you into a lot of trouble with a lot of things. But to say they can always resist temptation is totally contrary to Scripture.

Anything in particular?

Not like they have the desire to never sin...


As to Christian's avoiding sin... tell me something. Just because you don't avoid it or I don't avoid it... does that mean that it is impossible for us to avoid it?

No I dont believe that... what did I say that implied that we cannot sin?


Not speaking temptation here... speaking of sin. I think Owen has made a rather good case here and I am thinking folks are getting hung up on religious speak because of their own experiences etc.

Here is a challenge to you (an everyone for that matter). Go back and read what he has said again and respond to the points he makes. Show where they are in error biblically. That would be interesting to see. ;)

Ok... will try and see

Owen
Apr 27th 2007, 01:33 AM
Hm...

Where in the bible do you say its says non believers cannot always resist temptaion

Look at Romans 7:18-20:

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

I am of the opinion that this refers to a person who is unregenerate. This person wants to do, but yet he can not help do to the evil thing he doesn't want to do. He is effectively trapped, or enslaved, to sin. If he knows whats evil and does not want to do it and yet he can not stop it, it follows then that he is incapable of overcoming the temptation on his own. Hence, the need for someone to save him from the body, which is Jesus Christ who frees our mind from the law of sin in the body so that we can serve the law of God in our mind.

ProjectPeter
Apr 27th 2007, 01:40 AM
Anything in particular?

Not like they have the desire to never sin...



No I dont believe that... what did I say that implied that we cannot sin?



Ok... will try and see
The person that can always resist temptation is the person that won't sin... right? check out what that passage in James states.

GothicAngel
Apr 27th 2007, 01:54 AM
The person that can always resist temptation is the person that won't sin... right? check out what that passage in James states.
I dont think so.

I have the ability to sing off key; does that mean I will?

I also have the ability to resist temptaion; but how would that mean I alwasy wil;?

GothicAngel
Apr 27th 2007, 01:55 AM
Look at Romans 7:18-20:


I am of the opinion that this refers to a person who is unregenerate. This person wants to do, but yet he can not help do to the evil thing he doesn't want to do. He is effectively trapped, or enslaved, to sin. If he knows whats evil and does not want to do it and yet he can not stop it, it follows then that he is incapable of overcoming the temptation on his own. Hence, the need for someone to save him from the body, which is Jesus Christ who frees our mind from the law of sin in the body so that we can serve the law of God in our mind.
But wouldnt that then mean that unbelievers can do no good at all? And never resist temptation?

Owen
Apr 27th 2007, 02:00 AM
But wouldnt that then mean that unbelievers can do no good at all? And never resist temptation?

I don't believe the text is talking about a single act of doing good or bad, but the habit of doing good or bad.

I believe an unbeliever may resist a temptation on occasion, but they are weak and can not continue. Its like an out of shape person going out for a run. Sure, they can run for a few hundred yards, but then they begin to tire and can not keep it up. They can occasionally resist temptation, but they are bound to sin as they are slaves to sin. They can not resist temptation for all time. They lack the strength. God gives us the strength to overcome the flesh all the time if we submit ourselves.

GothicAngel
Apr 27th 2007, 02:04 AM
I don't believe the text is talking about a single act of doing good or bad, but the habit of doing good or bad.

I believe an unbeliever may resist a temptation on occasion, but they are weak and can not continue. Its like an out of shape person going out for a run. Sure, they can run for a few hundred yards, but then they begin to tire and can not keep it up. They can occasionally resist temptation, but they are bound to sin as they are slaves to sin. They can not resist temptation for all time. They lack the strength. God gives us the strength to overcome the flesh all the time if we submit ourselves.
Hm...


but would you say that in practice that is also true?

On another forum, there are many atheists who are constantly respetcful in their posts, even to the Christians who send them to hell. Such meekness seems to be pretty habitual with them... for example

ProjectPeter
Apr 27th 2007, 02:37 AM
I dont think so.

I have the ability to sing off key; does that mean I will?

I also have the ability to resist temptaion; but how would that mean I alwasy wil;?
You don't think the James passage speaks clearly on that matter? If temptation leads to sin which leads to death... then how can an unbeliever always resist temptation and by virtue of always resisting temptation then they aren't led to sin? And also... the passage Owen posted from Romans 7 is spot on. So again... the idea that an unbeliever can resist temptation is pretty much foreign to the Bible. They are in bondage of sin until they have been freed from that bondage. Without Christ, that freedom doesn't exist.

Owen
Apr 27th 2007, 02:45 AM
Hm...


but would you say that in practice that is also true?

On another forum, there are many atheists who are constantly respetcful in their posts, even to the Christians who send them to hell. Such meekness seems to be pretty habitual with them... for example

There are many areas than just one we are called to obey. Obedience (habitual good) is more than just being gentle in one area. I have met many gentle people who are controlled by their lusts for instance. We are called to be good in all aspects and being good in one aspect as a nonbeliever just means you do not have a habitual sin in that. There are other areas than the nonbeliever does not have the ability to overcome, because in one area there may be no temptation that they would struggle with but in another there is.

GothicAngel
Apr 27th 2007, 02:53 AM
You don't think the James passage speaks clearly on that matter? If temptation leads to sin which leads to death... then how can an unbeliever always resist temptation and by virtue of always resisting temptation then they aren't led to sin?

Please re read what I posted above. I dont believe the non beliveer will be able to resist sin always and continually, however, I believe that for any given sin, they have the ability to resist temptaion.


And also... the passage Owen posted from Romans 7 is spot on. So again... the idea that an unbeliever can resist temptation is pretty much foreign to the Bible. They are in bondage of sin until they have been freed from that bondage. Without Christ, that freedom doesn't exist.

Then how come they do resist sin?

Stefen
Apr 27th 2007, 05:05 AM
I sin... dont you?

I have sin, but I don't sin in the present, there is a big difference, you should do a greek word study in 1 John pertain to saying if we have no sin then we are liars. If any man be in God he does not sin. I received Gods divine nature talked about in 2nd peter, you should get some of that too!

Here I'll go ahead and do it for you.
1 John 1:8

8IfG1437 we sayG2036 that we haveG2192 noG3756 sinG266, we deceiveG4105 ourselvesG1438, and the truthG225 is not in us.

ἔχω
echō
ekh'-o
A primary verb (including an alternate form σχέω scheō skheh'-o used in certain tenses only); to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession, ability, contiguity, relation or condition):—be (able, X hold, possessed with), accompany, + begin to amend, can (+ -not), X conceive, count, diseased, do, + eat, + enjoy, + fear, following, have, hold, keep, + lack, + go to law, lie, + must needs, + of necessity, + need, next, + recover, + reign, + rest, return, X sick, take for, + tremble, + uncircumcised, use.

1 Corinthians 10:13

13No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

ProjectPeter
Apr 27th 2007, 04:32 PM
Please re read what I posted above. I dont believe the non beliveer will be able to resist sin always and continually, however, I believe that for any given sin, they have the ability to resist temptaion.



Then how come they do resist sin?
By what power can they resist? The flesh? That will most always fall short.

Souled Out
Apr 27th 2007, 06:39 PM
There is a battle of natures. I do not deny that. But I would say the nature of our mind, if we are truly Christians, is that of righteousness. And since the mind controls who we are and what we do, the flesh nature can be resisted all the time and we are not destined to sin again.

If we are a slave of sin, then we will die (Romans 6:16). I am not a slave of sin and nor am I if I give in to sin. That is my own will. Slavery to sin is when one is controlled by sin, not when we willingly sin on occasion.

As Christians we are slaves to righteousness, even if we occasionally disobey. Slavery does not dictate that a person will be 100% obedient.

Sanctification comes as we submits our members of the body to righteousness (romans 6:19). Thus this undoes the habit of sinfulness in the flesh (though habits do not control but tempt) and creates more righteous habits and in this way we are sanctified.

Faith, love, trust, patience, and all the fruit of the Spirit is a result of obedience and those things are obedience. Submitting to the Spirit brings about those fruits.

We do agree to some degree, but either we are speaking different words with the same meaning or we do have some definite differences, though subtle. And in the end, what I am passionate against (you may or may not be like this) are people who reduce the gravity of their sin by blaming it on the flesh (and thus take the feelings of personal guilt away and blame it on some nature they feel they can not control) or don't try to live sin free because they say they can not.


I think I see the differences between our views. You can correct me if I donít have a handle on your view. You see being a slave to sin as one who constantly commits sin. I see it as every time we commit sin we become its slave because we followed it (sin/flesh) and not Christ. You view the passages about us no longer being slaves to sin as a once and for all time deal as I believe those passages describe us when we do turn from sin and donít when we choose sin.

That to me explains how Christ can say, "Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin", but then for Paul to also say ďThanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.Ē

Even with this difference in view, I do think we agree that our bend and real master is Christ and righteousness, even in the times that we do stumble. Without that Voice to hearken us back we are nothing but the walking dead. That is the difference between having His Spirit and not.

Being in Christ is the only way we truly have freedom in slavery.

Stefen
Apr 28th 2007, 12:26 AM
That is just something to say to tickle your ear. To make sin a normality. There is no Sin in the Kingdom of God.

Souled Out
Apr 28th 2007, 02:18 AM
That is just something to say to tickle your ear. To make sin a normality. There is no Sin in the Kingdom of God.

Who are you talking to and what are you addressing?

GothicAngel
Apr 28th 2007, 02:07 PM
By what power can they resist? The flesh? That will most always fall short.
I dont think I really understand what you mean...

but they have spiritual virtues. God blesses them too.

Stefen
Apr 28th 2007, 05:58 PM
have sin, but I don't sin in the present, there is a big difference, you should do a greek word study in 1 John pertain to saying if we have no sin then we are liars. If any man be in God he does not sin. I received Gods divine nature talked about in 2nd peter, you should get some of that too!

Here I'll go ahead and do it for you.
1 John 1:8

8IfG1437 we sayG2036 that we haveG2192 noG3756 sinG266, we deceiveG4105 ourselvesG1438, and the truthG225 is not in us.

???
ech?
ekh'-o
A primary verb (including an alternate form ???? sche? skheh'-o used in certain tenses only); to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession, ability, contiguity, relation or condition):óbe (able, X hold, possessed with), accompany, + begin to amend, can (+ -not), X conceive, count, diseased, do, + eat, + enjoy, + fear, following, have, hold, keep, + lack, + go to law, lie, + must needs, + of necessity, + need, next, + recover, + reign, + rest, return, X sick, take for, + tremble, + uncircumcised, use.

1 Corinthians 10:13

13No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

ProjectPeter
Apr 28th 2007, 11:05 PM
I dont think I really understand what you mean...

but they have spiritual virtues. God blesses them too.
God "blesses" those who reject Him?

GothicAngel
Apr 29th 2007, 12:32 AM
God "blesses" those who reject Him?
Yes IMHO He does.

They have His graces too; otherwise they would never be able to resist temptaion for sin

ProjectPeter
Apr 29th 2007, 12:32 AM
What Scripture do you base this on?

GothicAngel
Apr 29th 2007, 12:35 AM
Stefen,

I dont think God intended the bible only for those who know Greek...

ProjectPeter
Apr 29th 2007, 12:43 AM
Not sure what Greek has to do with it. But none of that answers anything that I have asked. Do you have any biblical backing for any of this?

GothicAngel
Apr 29th 2007, 12:45 AM
What Scripture do you base this on?
Well...

isnt there something in the bible, about you cant do anything w/o Gods help?

And obvoiusly, the non Christians are resisting temptaion.

So, God must be helping them do so right?

GothicAngel
Apr 29th 2007, 12:45 AM
Not sure what Greek has to do with it. But none of that answers anything that I have asked. Do you have any biblical backing for any of this?
Sorry, if you are in linear, but Iwas responding to Stefans post

Stefen
Apr 29th 2007, 09:54 PM
Sorry, if you are in linear, but Iwas responding to Stefans post

you responded to my post without responding to the scripture. What does it say? Does is it say those who are in God sin or not?

Owen
Apr 29th 2007, 10:22 PM
I think I see the differences between our views. You can correct me if I donít have a handle on your view. You see being a slave to sin as one who constantly commits sin. I see it as every time we commit sin we become its slave because we followed it (sin/flesh) and not Christ. You view the passages about us no longer being slaves to sin as a once and for all time deal as I believe those passages describe us when we do turn from sin and donít when we choose sin.

That to me explains how Christ can say, "Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin", but then for Paul to also say ďThanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.Ē

Even with this difference in view, I do think we agree that our bend and real master is Christ and righteousness, even in the times that we do stumble. Without that Voice to hearken us back we are nothing but the walking dead. That is the difference between having His Spirit and not.

Being in Christ is the only way we truly have freedom in slavery.


As for the sayings of Jesus, Jesus is probably referring to those who are habitually sinning, not any one sin.

And once again, there is a big deal if when we sin we are slaves of sin. Then we have fallen from grace. We will die.

Committing one sin no more makes me a slave of sin than an unbeliever doing one good thing makes them a slave of righteousness.

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 30th 2007, 08:24 AM
Well...

isnt there something in the bible, about you cant do anything w/o Gods help?

And obvoiusly, the non Christians are resisting temptaion.

So, God must be helping them do so right?

GothicAngel,

What you need to remember is the fact that it is the flesh that is despisable in the eyes of the Lord. Every unbeliever is under its power. And even believers have to combat the flesh to keep it from taking control. But here's where it gets tricky: the flesh is not just expressed in outright sin such as immorality, lying, jealousy, etc. The flesh is also expressed in self-righteousness achieved without God. As such, conquering jealousy on your own is just as worthless as being jealous. Both are expressions of the flesh and both are worth nothing to God. As the OT says, our righteousness is as filthy rags before Him.

There is only one solution: to walk by faith, believing that we have been crucified with Christ, have been raised into a newness of life, and that God will now live through us to accomplish His will through us. This doesn't mean we don't need to do anything anymore, but it does mean that the foundation of any acceptable righteousness is faith.

GothicAngel
Apr 30th 2007, 01:03 PM
you responded to my post without responding to the scripture. What does it say? Does is it say those who are in God sin or not?
Lol... I havent done Greek in so long, I really have no clue what you are saying, sorry.

But I can tell you fro m personal obsevartion/experience, yes they do

GothicAngel
Apr 30th 2007, 01:22 PM
GothicAngel,

What you need to remember is the fact that it is the flesh that is despisable in the eyes of the Lord. Every unbeliever is under its power. And even believers have to combat the flesh to keep it from taking control. But here's where it gets tricky: the flesh is not just expressed in outright sin such as immorality, lying, jealousy, etc. The flesh is also expressed in self-righteousness achieved without God. As such, conquering jealousy on your own is just as worthless as being jealous. Both are expressions of the flesh and both are worth nothing to God. As the OT says, our righteousness is as filthy rags before Him.

There is only one solution: to walk by faith, believing that we have been crucified with Christ, have been raised into a newness of life, and that God will now live through us to accomplish His will through us. This doesn't mean we don't need to do anything anymore, but it does mean that the foundation of any acceptable righteousness is faith.

In all respect, you didnt really answer my question.

I do agree that every non believr is under the power of the flesh, and cant reach perfection either and all...

but how then do they act virtuous?

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 30th 2007, 03:08 PM
In all respect, you didnt really answer my question.

I do agree that every non believr is under the power of the flesh, and cant reach perfection either and all...

but how then do they act virtuous?

:) With all due respect, I think I did.

You need to remember that what the flesh produces is not solely what we commonly describe as 'bad'. The flesh is also equally capable of producing many things we commonly describe as 'good'. We may have a natural disposition that finds it easy to be joyful. Such joy may be considered to be virtuous by some. If it does not come forth from faith in God, however, we will both agree that it is not worth anything.

Therefore it is often said that Christ did not come to make bad people good but to make dead people live. The flesh can produce virtue (self-righteousness) just as much as it can sin (unrighteousness).

Stefen
Apr 30th 2007, 03:24 PM
Lol... I havent done Greek in so long, I really have no clue what you are saying, sorry.

But I can tell you fro m personal obsevartion/experience, yes they do

your experience does not replace truth.

GothicAngel
May 1st 2007, 11:09 PM
your experience does not replace truth.
But if my experience contradicts what you say is truth, whta then?

Stefen
May 2nd 2007, 11:38 PM
But if my experience contradicts what you say is truth, whta then?
What I say is truth because I get it right out of the Apostle John's mouth. No one's experience can change God's truth.

GothicAngel
May 2nd 2007, 11:41 PM
What I say is truth because I get it right out of the Apostle John's mouth. No one's experience can change God's truth.
Hm... but does it explicitly say that non Christians cant resist temptaions always?

Because if it doesnt... I still await your answers

Stefen
May 3rd 2007, 12:03 AM
Hm... but does it explicitly say that non Christians cant resist temptaions always?

Because if it doesnt... I still await your answers

What?? Ofcourse non christians can't resist temtation all the time. Only christians can. Maybe our wires got crossed or something. I've been refering to believers this whole time, not unbelievers.

zafir-jau'ro
Mar 31st 2017, 05:46 PM
I believe what you're driving at is something along the line of the righteousness of the pharisees and sadduces, right?

jesusinmylife
Mar 31st 2017, 06:20 PM
Not sure if the poster you're asking this question to will answer you. The last reply was almost 10 years ago.

mailmandan
Mar 31st 2017, 06:22 PM
1 John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin (PRESENT TENSE), we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Saul-to-Paul
Mar 31st 2017, 08:09 PM
1 John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin (PRESENT TENSE), we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Does that make a child of God a sinner?

mailmandan
Mar 31st 2017, 08:32 PM
Does that make a child of God a sinner? Positionally in Christ, no (Acts 26:18). Yet we are not sinless, without fault of defect, flawless, 100% of the time (1 John 1:8-2:1). Do you teach sinless perfection? Do you claim to never sin?

mailmandan
Apr 1st 2017, 11:04 AM
Do you teach sinless perfection? Do you claim to never sin? Still no answer. :hmm:

http://www.orangefreesounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Cricket_Sounds_Preview.jpg

Saul-to-Paul
Apr 1st 2017, 03:49 PM
Still no answer. :hmm:

http://www.orangefreesounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Cricket_Sounds_Preview.jpg

Haha crickets...

I teach what the Bible says. That a man born of God cannot sin because he is born of God. A child of God's soul is 100% perfected. His soul is one with the Spirit of God.

A child of God living on this earth is already in the kingdom of God. Because man is not two people, it is not Scriptural to say a child of God sins. That would create a contradiction. And we both know God doesn't contradict Himself.

But rather, as Paul explained, it's not I that sin but the flesh. I do have sin. That sin is in my flesh. If I go after the flesh I will do the things of the flesh. If go after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

I laugh at the term "habitual sins". As if there is one day a child of God goes without sinning in his/her flesh. It is the flesh's habit to lust after sin until that too one day will be perfected and sealed with the Holy Spirit.

I'm fully aware that sins of the flesh that a child of God goes after are worse than others. That's when God steps in to correct through chastising. I do not believe He is punishing us as a child of God but punishes the flesh.

There is no sin a child of God's flesh can commit that will separate him/her from God.

mailmandan
Apr 1st 2017, 04:24 PM
Haha crickets...

I teach what the Bible says. That a man born of God cannot sin because he is born of God. A child of God's soul is 100% perfected. His soul is one with the Spirit of God.

A child of God living on this earth is already in the kingdom of God. Because man is not two people, it is not Scriptural to say a child of God sins. That would create a contradiction. And we both know God doesn't contradict Himself.

But rather, as Paul explained, it's not I that sin but the flesh. I do have sin. That sin is in my flesh. If I go after the flesh I will do the things of the flesh. If go after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

I laugh at the term "habitual sins". As if there is one day a child of God goes without sinning in his/her flesh. It is the flesh's habit to lust after sin until that too one day will be perfected and sealed with the Holy Spirit.

I'm fully aware that sins of the flesh that a child of God goes after are worse than others. That's when God steps in to correct through chastising. I do not believe He is punishing us as a child of God but punishes the flesh.

There is no sin a child of God's flesh can commit that will separate him/her from God. So you believe what is "born of God" (the new nature) does not sin but the flesh still sins? Those who teach sinless perfection would argue that they never sin at all in the flesh.

mailmandan
Apr 2nd 2017, 12:11 PM
INTERESTING ARTICLE BY BOB WILKIN.

Do Born Again People Sin?

1 John 3:9

by Bob Wilkin
Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in Him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

This verse is often cited as teaching that "genuine" believers will not practice sin. They will not sin habitually, 1 John 3:9 is said to teach.

Notice how various versions and paraphrases translate the first part of the verse. Some suggest that habitual sin is in view. The New American Standard Version reads: "No one who is born of God practices sin." The Living Bible reads: "The person who has been born into God's family does not make a practice of sinning." The Amplified Bible has: "No one born [begotten] of God [deliberately and knowingly] habitually practices sin."

On the other hand, other translations suggest an absolute understanding—that the born of God person doesn't sin at all. The New King James Version, the one cited above, reads: "Whoever has been born of God does not sin." The New International Version has: "No one who is born of God continues to sin."

The translations and paraphrases show that there are two broad understandings of this verse: habitual and absolute.

The habitual sin view posits that John was teaching the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints here. "True" believers will not sin as a pattern of life. They will not be dominated by sin. They will be characterized by holiness and obedience. Sins for the "genuine" believer are merely occasional aberrations.

The second position has been called the new nature view. According to this view believers never sin as an expression of their born-of-God new natures. The new nature doesn't sin even occasionally. It is sinless. John is viewed as having called his readers to abide in Christ and live in keeping with their born of God new natures.

Which is right?

The habitual sin view cites for evidence the use of the present tense (poiei).

There are grave problems with this argument. For one thing, the present tense, unaided by qualifying words, does not mean what the habitual sin view suggests. In Greek when the present tense occurs it can be understood in a number of ways, one of which is the habitual present. However, the habitual present refers to events which occur over and over again repeatedly. If John was saying this about believers sinning he would be saying that believers do not sin repeatedly. If believers sin daily—as all believers do (cf. 1 John 1:8, 10)—then they sin habitually in the grammatical sense. I. Howard Marshall commented concerning the tense argument:

[It] involves translators in stressing the present continuous form of the verb in a way which they do not do elsewhere in the New Testament. (The Epistles of John, NICNT, p.180)

Similarly, C. H. Dodd writes:

All this [the idea that a believer does not sin habitually] is true. Yet it is legitimate to doubt whether the reader could be expected to grasp so subtle a doctrine simply upon the basis of a precise distinction of tenses without further guidance. (The Johannine Epistles, p. 79)

Another difficulty with this understanding is that one wonders why God would preserve believers from being dominated by sin and yet not from sinning altogether. I. Howard Marshall writes:

If believers do not sin habitually because God's seed remains in Him (3:9b), it is hard to understand why God would preserve believers from some sins, but not from all sins. We must, therefore, wonder whether an important point of interpretation can be made to rest on what has been called a grammatical subtlety. (The Epistles of John, p.180)

The habitual sin view is also ruled out by the context. In verse 5 John said that there is no sin in Christ. He clearly meant that there is absolutely no sin in Him. Then in the very next sentence he said that those who abide in Christ do not sin. He could hardly have meant that Christ sins not at all and those who abide in Him sin but not a lot. John's point is clearly that sin is never an expression of abiding in Christ. When we abide we do not sin at all.

Verse 9 is a further development of this point. No believer ever sins as an expression of his new nature. Insofar as the believer expresses his new nature in his experience, he will not sin because God's seed remains in him (1 John 3:9b).

Alford notes that "If the child of God falls into sin, it is an act against [his] nature" (Hebrews-Revelation, p.465). Likewise, Brooke writes:

The fact that he has been begotten of God excludes the possibility of his committing sin as an expression of his true character, though actual sins may, and do, occur so far as he fails from weakness to realize his true character. (The Johannine Epistles, p.89)

1 John 3:9 does not teach the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Indeed, no passage does. God perseveres. Saints at best fail daily. 1 John 3:9 is a call to holiness. Our new natures are pure and holy. Let us live in our experience like we are in our position. Of course, there is a mystery here. John said in 1 John 1:8,10 that believers cannot attain to sinless perfection in their experience. However, we can allow our new natures to dominate our experience so that we live consistently godly lives. May we live like who we are: children of the Holy One who has saved us by His amazing, free grace.

Saul-to-Paul
Apr 2nd 2017, 06:45 PM
So you believe what is "born of God" (the new nature) does not sin but the flesh still sins?

Correct.


Those who teach sinless perfection would argue that they never sin at all in the flesh.

They never sin and the flesh never sins. Then what would be the reason for the chastisement of God? I would ask them.

mailmandan
Apr 2nd 2017, 10:11 PM
They never sin and the flesh never sins. Then what would be the reason for the chastisement of God? I would ask them. I would ask them the same question.

Slug1
Apr 2nd 2017, 10:22 PM
They never sin and the flesh never sins. Then what would be the reason for the chastisement of God? I would ask them.So far, here are the two questions never answered when a person is saying/posting that Christians never sin.
1) Are you without sin?
2) What is the purpose of God's chastisement of Christians, who sin?

Been asking for years and have not yet received any direct answer. Alot of beating around the bush-like responses and some responses are to just post scriptures. But direct answers... never have I read any that directly address either of the questions.

justbyfaith
Apr 3rd 2017, 06:59 PM
Are Christians really completely free from sin?



Not forced... I guess I have used the wrong word, sorry. Who or what infulences them?... Well the devil tempts us, for starters. Course what does that t shirt say, "Lead me not into temptation I can find it by myself." Concupisense and a weak human nature have been part of us since Adam and Eve. And I dont think being a Chritsian will take that away. I do think that only Christians can reach perfection, but I doubt many if any do.

Near the beginning, the devil said to Eve, "Hath God reallly said...?"

Christians really are set free from sin if they continue in His word...this is the testimony of the holy scriptures.

Concerning something else that was said, somethng about how we all offend in every way, or something like that...I suggest reading Matthew 13:41-42!!!

justbyfaith
Apr 3rd 2017, 07:04 PM
Indeed

John 8:36
"So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Sin no longer has any power over us. Read Romans 7:1-6. We are literally SET FREE from the Law of sin because Christ BECAME sin and DIED. And just as a wife (ie the church) is no longer bound to a dead husband (Christ as sin), we are freed from that Law to live and be wedded to righteousness. And if we truly have the Spirit of Christ living in us, then we are wedded to Christ and righteousness.

Sin is now spiritual adultery. And it is contrary to our nature.

This is what I am learning right now.

God bless


Indeed.

None will be sinless in this life. We will not be perfected in this life, but glorification comes afterwards (Romans 8:30). But Paul speaks of it as if it has already happened, so it is a certainty for the believer, the elect, the called. What amazing grace and love He has for us that He would die for us while we are sinners! And if He died for us while we were sinners, how much more will He preserve us when we are in Christ?

If you (generically) are not growing and changing then you may want to make your calling and election sure, however. Sanctification is evidence of genuine conversion.

Grace to you

See (in the KJV especially) 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, Hebrews 10:10,14-17, 1 John 3:5-9, Titus 2:14, Jude 1:24, 2 Peter 1:10, and 1 John 2:10 (there are more scriptures on the subject than this, but I posted only a few so that the reader will not be overwhelmed and read none of them at all).

Stew Ward's Hip
Apr 3rd 2017, 07:12 PM
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

1 John 1:8

justbyfaith
Apr 3rd 2017, 07:27 PM
Hm...


but would you say that in practice that is also true?

On another forum, there are many atheists who are constantly respetcful in their posts, even to the Christians who send them to hell. Such meekness seems to be pretty habitual with them... for example

My experience of witnessing to atheists (at a now-gone web-site cygnus-study.com, for example) is that when you kindly show them convicting scriptures, they curse at you. If that has cnanged it is because moderators of websites these days enforce certain rules by deleing posts that have flames in them.

justbyfaith
Apr 3rd 2017, 07:37 PM
Hm... but does it explicitly say that non Christians cant resist temptaions always?

Because if it doesnt... I still await your answers

I think that John 15:5 may have sometihng to do with it.

justbyfaith
Apr 3rd 2017, 07:41 PM
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

1 John 1:8

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 1:8 is not speaking of practice but of indwelling sin as a factor. 1 John 3:9 however, is speaking of practice: that is, what we do practically as true believers concerning sin and righteousness.

Stew Ward's Hip
Apr 3rd 2017, 07:46 PM
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 1:8 is not speaking of practice but of indwelling sin as a factor. 1 John 3:9 however, is speaking of practice: that is, what we do practically as true believers concerning sin and righteousness.

And how do you come to this conclusion?

justbyfaith
Apr 3rd 2017, 07:58 PM
INTERESTING ARTICLE BY BOB WILKIN.

Do Born Again People Sin?

1 John 3:9

by Bob Wilkin
Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in Him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

This verse is often cited as teaching that "genuine" believers will not practice sin. They will not sin habitually, 1 John 3:9 is said to teach.

Notice how various versions and paraphrases translate the first part of the verse. Some suggest that habitual sin is in view. The New American Standard Version reads: "No one who is born of God practices sin." The Living Bible reads: "The person who has been born into God's family does not make a practice of sinning." The Amplified Bible has: "No one born of God [deliberately and knowingly] habitually practices sin."

On the other hand, other translations suggest an absolute understanding—that the born of God person doesn't sin at all. The New King James Version, the one cited above, reads: "Whoever has been born of God does not sin." The New International Version has: "No one who is born of God continues to sin."

The translations and paraphrases show that there are two broad understandings of this verse: habitual and absolute.

The habitual sin view posits that John was teaching the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints here. "True" believers will not sin as a pattern of life. They will not be dominated by sin. They will be characterized by holiness and obedience. Sins for the "genuine" believer are merely occasional aberrations.

The second position has been called the new nature view. According to this view believers never sin as an expression of their born-of-God new natures. The new nature doesn't sin even occasionally. It is sinless. John is viewed as having called his readers to abide in Christ and live in keeping with their born of God new natures.

Which is right?

The habitual sin view cites for evidence the use of the present tense (poiei).

There are grave problems with this argument. For one thing, the present tense, unaided by qualifying words, does not mean what the habitual sin view suggests. In Greek when the present tense occurs it can be understood in a number of ways, one of which is the habitual present. However, the habitual present refers to events which occur over and over again repeatedly. If John was saying this about believers sinning he would be saying that believers do not sin repeatedly. If believers sin daily—as all believers do (cf. 1 John 1:8, 10)—then they sin habitually in the grammatical sense. I. Howard Marshall commented concerning the tense argument:

[It] involves translators in stressing the present continuous form of the verb in a way which they do not do elsewhere in the New Testament. (The Epistles of John, NICNT, p.180)

Similarly, C. H. Dodd writes:

All this [the idea that a believer does not sin habitually] is true. Yet it is legitimate to doubt whether the reader could be expected to grasp so subtle a doctrine simply upon the basis of a precise distinction of tenses without further guidance. (The Johannine Epistles, p. 79)

Another difficulty with this understanding is that one wonders why God would preserve believers from being dominated by sin and yet not from sinning altogether. I. Howard Marshall writes:

If believers do not sin habitually because God's seed remains in Him (3:9b), it is hard to understand why God would preserve believers from some sins, but not from all sins. We must, therefore, wonder whether an important point of interpretation can be made to rest on what has been called a grammatical subtlety. (The Epistles of John, p.180)

The habitual sin view is also ruled out by the context. In verse 5 John said that there is no sin in Christ. He clearly meant that there is absolutely no sin in Him. Then in the very next sentence he said that those who abide in Christ do not sin. He could hardly have meant that Christ sins not at all and those who abide in Him sin but not a lot. John's point is clearly that sin is never an expression of abiding in Christ. When we abide we do not sin at all.

Verse 9 is a further development of this point. No believer ever sins as an expression of his new nature. Insofar as the believer expresses his new nature in his experience, he will not sin because God's seed remains in him (1 John 3:9b).

Alford notes that "If the child of God falls into sin, it is an act against [his] nature" (Hebrews-Revelation, p.465). Likewise, Brooke writes:

The fact that he has been begotten of God excludes the possibility of his committing sin as an expression of his true character, though actual sins may, and do, occur so far as he fails from weakness to realize his true character. (The Johannine Epistles, p.89)

1 John 3:9 does not teach the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Indeed, no passage does. God perseveres. Saints at best fail daily. 1 John 3:9 is a call to holiness. Our new natures are pure and holy. Let us live in our experience like we are in our position. Of course, there is a mystery here. John said in 1 John 1:8,10 that believers cannot attain to sinless perfection in their experience. However, we can allow our new natures to dominate our experience so that we live consistently godly lives. May we live like who we are: children of the Holy One who has saved us by His amazing, free grace.

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

1 John 2:17, And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

This appears to me to be saying that the saints will persevere in holiness.

It seems to me also that saints would be outside of the spectrum of your normal Christian. Of course there is the teaching out there that if you are a Christian (which some people think they are Christians simply because they go to church) you are a saint. But a saint is by definition a "holy one". More Christians than not I would term as not being saints. Especially the kind that try to tell people that no one can live in holiness because that is their personal experience.

justbyfaith
Apr 3rd 2017, 08:02 PM
Correct.



They never sin and the flesh never sins. Then what would be the reason for the chastisement of God? I would ask them.

What a wonder!!! If I obey Christ I get to avoid the chastisement of God! Thanks for giving people a motivation to accept the doctrine of entire sanctification, even though it seems you are against it in your own personal belief system.

justbyfaith
Apr 3rd 2017, 08:08 PM
So far, here are the two questions never answered when a person is saying/posting that Christians never sin.
1) Are you without sin?
2) What is the purpose of God's chastisement of Christians, who sin?

Been asking for years and have not yet received any direct answer. Alot of beating around the bush-like responses and some responses are to just post scriptures. But direct answers... never have I read any that directly address either of the questions.

That's probably because it's a trick question.

My answer is no I am not without sin (I have indwelling sin); but that sin in me can be/is rendered dead so that I do not have to sin. Perhaps John is using hyperbole in 1 John 3:9 to make the statement that if you are a Christian you do not have to sin; but I would always strive to be in that place, and to get others to be in that place, where I or they would find myself/themselves incapable of sinning (see Colossians 1:28, Hebrews 10:14-17, etc.)

justbyfaith
Apr 3rd 2017, 08:11 PM
And how do you come to this conclusion?

By comparing spiritual thing with spiritual; it is the teaching of the Holy Ghost.

Beware lest you be found acting like the devil and using his tactics to get your point across. In the beginning it was, "Hath God really said...?"

Therefore the devil's tactic is to question whether something stated is really the word of God.

And this appears to be your tactic also in your asking of the last question.

Stew Ward's Hip
Apr 3rd 2017, 08:27 PM
By comparing spiritual thing with spiritual; it is the teaching of the Holy Ghost.

Beware lest you be found acting like the devil and using his tactics to get your point across. In the beginning it was, "Hath God really said...?"

Therefore the devil's tactic is to question whether something stated is really the word of God.

And this appears to be your tactic also in your asking of the last question.

Hardly.

You take a dogmatic position that "Real" Christians do not sin, then try to explain away the clear teaching of 1 John 1:8 by alluding to this Gnostic idea of "indwelling sin"

After all, "the devil's tactic is to question whether something stated is really the word of God", right?

SeekFirstTheKingdom
Apr 3rd 2017, 10:29 PM
I have been in both camps along my walk in Christ. Hyper-grace vs. sinless perfection/entire-sanctification etc.

Both are ditches/extremes I now avoid. Paul simplified it well. Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid.

Also, we shall be saved to sin no more, completely sanctified and sin-free (once we are changed, once we aren't in this human body). In the meantime, we simply do our absolute best to not sin willfully, and when we do sin (which happens to the 'BEST' saints), we confess it and repent and are promised the LORD will forgive us our sins and cleanse us etc.

Woe to the people who actually think they are without sin, I would much rather have the mentality of beating my chest "LORD have mercy on me, a sinner" than "Oh, I am so obedient and holy, I am entirely sanctified and walk in the light 24/7, anyone who doesn't think like me is using tactics of the devil" etc.

Slug1
Apr 3rd 2017, 10:36 PM
I have been in both camps along my walk in Christ. Hyper-grace vs. sinless perfection/entire-sanctification etc.

Both are ditches/extremes I now avoid. Paul simplified it well. Shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid.

Also, we shall be saved to sin no more, completely sanctified and sin-free (once we are changed, once we aren't in this human body). In the meantime, we simply do our absolute best to not sin willfully, and when we do sin (which happens to the 'BEST' saints), we confess it and repent and are promised the LORD will forgive us our sins and cleanse us etc.

Woe to the people who actually think they are without sin, I would much rather have the mentality of beating my chest "LORD have mercy on me, a sinner" than "Oh, I am so obedient and holy, I am entirely sanctified and walk in the light 24/7, anyone who doesn't think like me is using tactics of the devil" etc.Your final part is a great conclusion. Which always points us to the... if a person who is Christian cannot sin, then why does God even raise chastisement of those He loves?

From experience, anyone never been chastened by God... then it's still a coming and the holiest ones, when they are corrected and realize their sin, usually go through the most stringent chastisement. And also have the greatest testimonies on the other side of the chastisement. The type of testimony that when other Christians listen, may be knocked off their holy mountain when they realize their sin too. At the bottom is where the chastisement is waiting to begin.

SeekFirstTheKingdom
Apr 3rd 2017, 11:00 PM
Your final part is a great conclusion. Which always points us to the... if a person who is Christian cannot sin, then why does God even raise chastisement of those He loves?

From experience, anyone never been chastened by God... then it's still a coming and the holiest ones, when they are corrected and realize their sin, usually go through the most stringent chastisement. And also have the greatest testimonies on the other side of the chastisement. The type of testimony that when other Christians listen, may be knocked off their holy mountain when they realize their sin too. At the bottom is where the chastisement is waiting to begin.

Amen. Just for clarification purposes: I mean, I get it...anyone who has done any amount of street preaching knows that MANY professing Christians live in willful habitual sin, admit it, and claim hyper-grace etc. I am however, not doing/claiming the same thing. True Christians love Jesus, and do their absolute best to walk in a way that honors and pleases Him. They (we) have the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin and of grieving the Spirit. There is a place for brotherly rebuke/correction/admonishments etc, but there are a certain camp who go around (in a crafty way) accusing Christians of not being holy/righteous enough, and I really don't find it edifying especially when I already know and am convicted of things I need to overcome etc. Being led by the Holy Spirit as far as how we Christians address another brother/sister in the LORD is CRITICAL. Because, sometimes, yes the LORD will have us harshly/firmly rebuke someone in love. However, other times He leads us to encourage them and we always need to be reminded that it is the goodness of God that leadeth to repentance.

Also, after re-reading when I said "Woe to the people who actually think they are without sin, I would much rather have the mentality of beating my chest "LORD have mercy on me, a sinner" than "Oh, I am so obedient and holy, I am entirely sanctified and walk in the light 24/7, anyone who doesn't think like me is using tactics of the devil" etc." - I see that it could come across as me being rude or as mocking justbyfaith, which wasn't my intention. I just want to make sure he/she doesn't read it and take offense to it etc. Sorry for not wording that in a more careful way.

Slug1
Apr 4th 2017, 12:36 AM
Amen. Just for clarification purposes: I mean, I get it...anyone who has done any amount of street preaching knows that MANY professing Christians live in willful habitual sin, admit it, and claim hyper-grace etc. I am however, not doing/claiming the same thing. True Christians love Jesus, and do their absolute best to walk in a way that honors and pleases Him. They (we) have the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin and of grieving the Spirit. There is a place for brotherly rebuke/correction/admonishments etc, but there are a certain camp who go around (in a crafty way) accusing Christians of not being holy/righteous enough, and I really don't find it edifying especially when I already know and am convicted of things I need to overcome etc. Being led by the Holy Spirit as far as how we Christians address another brother/sister in the LORD is CRITICAL. Because, sometimes, yes the LORD will have us harshly/firmly rebuke someone in love. However, other times He leads us to encourage them and we always need to be reminded that it is the goodness of God that leadeth to repentance.
Hooah.

Your concluding statement underlined. Fully supported in scripture.

James 5: 19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Noeb
Apr 4th 2017, 03:58 AM
1 John 1:8 is not speaking of practice but of indwelling sin as a factor.1 John 1:8 simply says a Gnostic doesn't confess sin, Christians do. It's not a statement that we must sin, so you are correct is not speaking of practice.

Noeb
Apr 4th 2017, 04:00 AM
You take a dogmatic position that "Real" Christians do not sin, then try to explain away the clear teaching of 1 John 1:8It's anything but clear. Most think it means we all sin, and must, until the resurrection. However that would contradict the rest of scripture.

CadyandZoe
Apr 4th 2017, 12:14 PM
1 John 1:8 simply says a Gnostic doesn't confess sin, Christians do. It's not a statement that we must sin, so you are correct is not speaking of practice.

It's a common misconception that John was writing against Gnostic Teachers. Gnosticism wasn't the problem for the first century church; the problem for the first century church was false teachers sent by groups like the Circumcision Party, continually harassing believers who follow Jesus Christ and believe that he is the messiah. These groups would follow the Apostles around and after the Apostles would leave, these men would attempt to convert the churches to Judaism and disabuse the churches of the notion that Jesus is the son of God.

1John should be read in light of 2John and 3John, which are actually cover letters to accompany 1John. In the following passage we have John's description of the problem the early church faced.

3John:
5 Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; 6 and they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. 7 For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. 8 Therefore we ought to support such men, so that we may be fellow workers with the truth.

9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.

Here the issue is centered on the support or non-support of traveling Christian teachers. The question on the table, for John, is his concern with those who are attempting to convince the churches that John and the other twelve apostles are the false teachers and anyone claiming to be taught by them should not be believed and should not be supported financially. Should you believe the apostles or should you believe these other men who argue against the Apostles? Should you financially support the Apostles or should you financially support these other teachers?

And so the larger question is, who is telling the truth? John recommends that a teacher claiming to be from God should be evaluated according to how he walks. Does he walk in the truth? Does he walk in love? Does he love God more than he loves the world? If we learn anything from these letters, we learn to distinguish those who represent God from those who represent the devil by their love or lack of love, especially for the brethren. And so love is a central theme of John's letters. Those who are walking in the truth are those who love God and love the brethren. Jesus often talked about love for the brethren and that such love will be one of the markers of a true disciple.

Noeb
Apr 5th 2017, 01:36 AM
It's a common misconception that John was writing against Gnostic Teachers. Gnosticism wasn't the problem for the first century churchYou can of course believe this if you want. :rolleyes:

CadyandZoe
Apr 5th 2017, 11:41 AM
You can of course believe this if you want. :rolleyes:

Yes, and I have good reason to believe what I believe.

Noeb
Apr 5th 2017, 01:37 PM
You have no reason to think second century 'Gnostic' beliefs did not exist in the first century.

Slug1
Apr 5th 2017, 02:39 PM
It is documented in many studies that 1-3 John cannot be proven or disproven to be in reaction to or against Gnostic teachings. It's a debate going on for generations and has not ended.

Noeb
Apr 5th 2017, 05:10 PM
It is documented in many studies that 1-3 John cannot be proven or disproven to be in reaction to or against Gnostic teachings. It's a debate going on for generations and has not ended.Nonsense. No matter what we label it, no one denies John addressed these things, and no one denies that the influences through which various forms of Gnosticism came from existed in the first century. Well, I'm sure there are people ignorant enough to say it but....

Stew Ward's Hip
Apr 5th 2017, 05:18 PM
Paul clearly dealt with a form of Jewish feminist gnosticism in 1 Timothy.

Slug1
Apr 5th 2017, 05:37 PM
Nonsense. No matter what we label it, no one denies John addressed these things, and no one denies that the influences through which various forms of Gnosticism came from existed in the first century. Well, I'm sure there are people ignorant enough to say it but....I was just making a comment based on the scholarly resources I was forced to reference while in college and I happened to make a statement of, "John was addressing the Gnostic problem back then" and the professors required me to prove that.

I couldn't prove it sufficiently.

So I said from that point on... "it's my opinion that, blah, blah, blah..." Then some professors asked why I lean the way I do.

Noeb
Apr 5th 2017, 06:49 PM
Again, no one denies that the influences through which various forms of Gnosticism came existed in the first century. Pretty easy to prove. That you couldn't prove the label is another issue.

CadyandZoe
Apr 5th 2017, 06:54 PM
You have no reason to think second century 'Gnostic' beliefs did not exist in the first century.

Whether Gnostic beliefs existed then is not the issue. I maintain that John was not speaking to Gnostic beliefs in his letters.

Slug1
Apr 5th 2017, 06:54 PM
Again, no one denies that the influences through which various forms of Gnosticism came existed in the first century. Pretty easy to prove. That you couldn't prove the label is another issue.Gnosticism wasn't the issue. Stating in a paper that John's 3 letters were in refutation of Gnostic teachings, was the issue. Professors demanded proof/support.

Noeb
Apr 6th 2017, 01:47 AM
Whether Gnostic beliefs existed then is not the issue. I maintain that John was not speaking to Gnostic beliefs in his letters.Then what was he speaking to? We have no sin? Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh? Concerning them that seduce you? What you wrote in post 113 isn't even in the 3 books (I'll call it what it is, conjure), but what I just mentioned is.

Noeb
Apr 6th 2017, 01:50 AM
Gnosticism wasn't the issue. Stating in a paper that John's 3 letters were in refutation of Gnostic teachings, was the issue. Professors demanded proof/support.If there are teachings addressed in the books that are Gnostic how is it not the issue? How did you let some P that is 'so smart' he's ignorant make you believe the undeniable is deniable?

fewarechosen
Apr 6th 2017, 03:46 AM
The "new man" aka Holy spirit does not sin. The "old man" aka flesh does sin.

If you have the Holy spirit that war is going on in you. The new man never sins but the old man certainly does.

Look at paul below he says his mind serves the law of God but says his flesh serves the law of sin.

"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

The two are seperate, the born again part of you the Spirit never sins because its of God and its impossible, but your flesh that sins. As the saying goes in my flesh dwelleth no good thing.

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Slug1
Apr 6th 2017, 11:28 AM
If there are teachings addressed in the books that are Gnostic how is it not the issue? How did you let some P that is 'so smart' he's ignorant make you believe the undeniable is deniable?The issue wasn't about denying. The issue was supporting position. When all you find is support that a debate has been going on for all this age so far, then all I was able to do was express my position and incorporate references that both support and don't support (counter my position) and make a determination based on the evidence produced.

The point. Anyone can claim that a letter written by an Apostle is in direct opposition to Gnosticism... the claim has no value if you do not support either for or against and from the support, produce a product... not an opinion.

Noeb
Apr 6th 2017, 01:15 PM
The issue wasn't about denying. The issue was supporting position. When all you find is support that a debate has been going on for all this age so far, then all I was able to do was express my position and incorporate references that both support and don't support (counter my position) and make a determination based on the evidence produced.

The point. Anyone can claim that a letter written by an Apostle is in direct opposition to Gnosticism... the claim has no value if you do not support either for or against and from the support, produce a product... not an opinion.Again, there is no debate, and never has been, that the issues presented are Gnostic. If John was not addressing these issues, what was he addressing? We have no sin? If he was not addressing dualism/demiurge, he must have been saying we must sin. That's an absurd view. Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh? If not docetism what was he addressing? What support does anyone have that John was not addressing these things? The claim has no value and cannot be supported.

Slug1
Apr 6th 2017, 01:18 PM
Again, there is no debate, and never has been, that the issues presented are Gnostic. If John was not addressing these issues, what was he addressing? We have no sin? If he was not addressing dualism/demiurge, he must have been saying we must sin. That's an absurd view. Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh? If not docetism what was he addressing? What support does anyone have that John was not addressing these things? The claim has no value and cannot be supported.Hahaha, OK :lol:

Noeb
Apr 6th 2017, 01:37 PM
Glad you finally got it. It's not difficult.

Slug1
Apr 6th 2017, 01:38 PM
Glad you finally got it. It's not difficult.Actually, I'm laughing because you'd probably have as difficult a time writing that paper as I did.

Noeb
Apr 6th 2017, 03:34 PM
I would [EDIT] NOT waste my time proving something not disputed by anyone.

CadyandZoe
Apr 6th 2017, 06:08 PM
Then what was he speaking to?

I summarized the letters in a previous post you can find here. I summarized the letters in a previous post you can find here. (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/85527-Christians-still-sin?p=3379378#post3379378)
The false teachers during John's time were scribes and Pharisees, not Gnostic teachers. I think a review of the literature will reveal the presence of "protognostics", small groups of people who followed false teachers like Simon. These teachers had no great influence until the second and third century after both Judaism and Christianity came under attack by the Romans.


We have no sin?During John's time, sin was narrowly defined as "not obeying the law of Moses." Anyone who disobeyed or failed to practice Moses was considered a "sinner" by definition. Anyone who obeyed the law of Moses was not a "sinner", according to that definition. Paul employed that definition of "sinner" in his letter to the Galatians when he said, "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles . . ."; In other words, Peter and Paul obeyed Moses. The the Jewish false teachers supposed that since they obeyed Moses, they had no sin. They were not sinners. These men believed in "justification by orthopraxy", i.e. by works of the Law. And as long as they continued to practice the Jewish religion, they supposed that God was pleased with them.

John wrote his letter to second generation Christian believers who lacked first-hand experience with Jesus or the other Apostles. All they had was the word of their parents. Upon the arrival of certain devout Jews who claim to be experts on their religion; set about to convince these young believers that the apostles have exaggerated the significance and importance of Jesus beyond his true nature as a good teacher. Jesus was a devout Jew like them, and would never claim to be the messiah, which is blaspheme. And a rabbi would never blaspheme God.


Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh?The Jewish false teachers understood that Jesus came in the flesh, but since he came in the flesh, this disqualified him from being the messiah. According to these teachers, the messiah, when he comes, will not be a human man. He will be a theophany of God himself. These men were not expecting a human messiah; they were expecting the appearance of a deity; a visible manifestation to humankind of God, similar to all the other theophanies found in the OT.


What you wrote in post 113 isn't even in the 3 books (I'll call it what it is, conjure), but what I just mentioned is.I made more than one claim, to which are you referring?

As to my claim that 2John and 3John are cover letters to 1John, we need only to review the first two or three sentences of each book. Second and Third John begin with greetings.

2John 1 The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth,

3John 1 The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.

First John has no greeting, intended as his defense of his version of the gospel, based on the fact that he was an eyewitness to the events surrounding the ministry of Jesus.

1John 1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—

Thus we see that First John is not intended to be a stand-alone letter but accompanied by a cover letter, who of which are still in existence.

The question is, was Jesus merely a good teacher, or the Messiah? John claims to be an eye witness to the teachings of Jesus and he can personally testify that Jesus claimed to be the messiah.

Those who claim that John was writing against Gnosticism, suppose that John's focus on the humanness of Jesus was given in reaction to Docetism, the teaching that Christ did not have a human body. Jesus merely seemed to be human but in fact was some kind of phantasm. The problem with this claim is that Docetism didn't appear until much later, the first mention of Docetism appearing in a document dated between 197 and 203AD. The controversy seems to center on John's statement in 1John 4:3

3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.


Since the idea that John was writing against the Gnostics is popular among scholars, my translation reflects that assumption. But I would maintain that the following translation is also possible from the Greek.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit; rather, evaluate the spirits to see if they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2•By this you know the spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus to be the Messiah–even though he has come in human flesh–is from God. 3•And every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. 4•Indeed, this is the spirit of opposition to the Messiah, about which you heard that it was coming. 5•And indeed it is now in the world already. (Dr. John A. Crabtree)

The Docetics will later claim that Jesus was the Christ but as the Christ he didn't have a human body. John, however, is dealing with those who claim that since Jesus was human, this disqualified him as the messiah. Notice the difference. Docetics believed Jesus was the messiah, though not a human messiah. The Jewish teachers believed that Jesus was human, but denied he was the messiah on that basis.

Paul was dealing with the same Jewish false teachers in his letter to the Hebrews. The Jewish false teachers denied that Jesus was the messiah based on the fact that Jesus was a human being. Paul uses the Jewish scriptures to prove that indeed the messiah would be a human being and not a theophany.

(This was part of a much larger post, which seems to have been lost.)

CadyandZoe
Apr 6th 2017, 06:15 PM
Again, there is no debate, and never has been, that the issues presented are Gnostic.I'm debating it now.

Noeb
Apr 8th 2017, 01:27 AM
I would waste my time proving something not disputed by anyone.I'm sure everyone knows this but just to be clear, this was supposed to read, "I would NOT waste my time proving something not disputed by anyone."

Noeb
Apr 8th 2017, 01:43 AM
I summarized the letters in a previous post you can find here. I summarized the letters in a previous post you can find here. (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/85527-Christians-still-sin?p=3379378#post3379378)
I referred to that already as not saying anything found in the books.



The false teachers during John's time were scribes and Pharisees, not Gnostic teachers. I think a review of the literature will reveal the presence of "protognostics", small groups of people who followed false teachers like Simon. These teachers had no great influence until the second and third century after both Judaism and Christianity came under attack by the Romans.You have no basis whatsoever to state there were no false teachers from other religions during John's time. In fact we know there were, so why have you made this false claim? Define great influence, and are you suggesting John should not have bothered addressing teachings from false teachers of rising mystery/gnostic religions? Call them "protognostics" or call it "incipient gnosticism" and pretend they were irrelevant if you want to but the fact remains they existed and were opposed by apostles, not waiting on Christianities adversaries to destroy the faith of some believers and grow without opposition.



I'm debating it now.Then post 118 is for you.

CadyandZoe
Apr 8th 2017, 01:31 PM
You have no basis whatsoever to state there were no false teachers from other religions during John's time. In fact we know there were, so why have you made this false claim?I maintain that John's letters were not directed against Gnosticism or Gnostic teachers. I explained why, based on a comparison between the teachings of Docetism the teachings of John. I also base my view on the fact that Gnosticism and Docetism were not prevalent or significantly important until the second and third centuries.

If you have evidence that Gnostic Docetism was culturally and historically significant before the year 190, then present it.

But even we were to find Gnostic teachers prior to the year 190, I maintain that the letters of John do not address the teachings of Docetism. Think about it, out of the entire letter of 1John, we have one statement that some have construed to address the heresy of Docetism, 1John 4:2-3, thus rendering these two verses as a complete non-sequitur. Out of the blue, John simply decides to toss in a word about Docetism, never explaining why, or what this has to do with what he just said or what he will say after that. Under this claim, 1John 4:2-3 has no logical connection to 1John 4:1 or 1John 4:4 and following. It's hard if not impossible to refute a false doctrine in two sentences.

But remember, Docetism agreed with the Apostolic teaching that Jesus was the Christ; they parted with the Apostles when they denied that Jesus, being the Christ, was without an actual body. John is dealing with the other extreme, however, speaking against those who claim that the humanity of Jesus disqualified him from being the Christ.


Define great influence, and are you suggesting John should not have bothered addressing teachings from false teachers of rising mystery/gnostic religions? Call them "protognostics" or call it "incipient gnosticism" and pretend they were irrelevant if you want to but the fact remains they existed and were opposed by apostles, not waiting on Christianities adversaries to destroy the faith of some believers and grow without opposition.Again, show me the facts.

Noeb
Apr 8th 2017, 05:30 PM
Again, show me the facts.You have for me already saying "protognostics". Unless you said that based on something other than facts. Why ask for evidence for what you already know to be true? You rely on a belief and argument of insignificance, which you claim proves apostles couldn't have been bothered with "protognostics", but this view of yours cannot be based on facts, only assumption. So when are you going to produce facts for your argument?

Slug1
Apr 10th 2017, 12:24 AM
A verse came up during today's sermon at church...

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

ProDeo
Apr 10th 2017, 05:15 AM
A verse came up during today's sermon at church...

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Who are these my little children?

Choices

#1. John's offspring (age 4-12)

#2. A bunch of toddlers

#3. Unrepented adults

#4. Born again Christians

#5. Born again sinless Christians (per 1 John 3:9 KJV)

#6. Born again sinless and completely sanctified Christians (per 1 Tess 5:23)

Can't be [5] or [6] else they aren't sinless.

CadyandZoe
Apr 10th 2017, 05:59 PM
Who are these my little children?

Choices

#1. John's offspring (age 4-12)

#2. A bunch of toddlers

#3. Unrepented adults

#4. Born again Christians

#5. Born again sinless Christians (per 1 John 3:9 KJV)

#6. Born again sinless and completely sanctified Christians (per 1 Tess 5:23)

Can't be [5] or [6] else they aren't sinless.

John's "children" are all the believers in John's flock. Sometimes he calls them "little children". In chapter 2, he divides his "little children" into two parts, "fathers" and "young men." Those he calls "fathers" are those who first heard the gospel from him very early in John's ministry. Those he calls "young men" are second generation believers who came to faith under the ministry of the "fathers". [not to be confused with the ECF's, which are an entirely different thing.] The "fathers" learned directly from John. The "young men" learned from the "fathers." Here is how he puts it.


1 John 2
12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His nameís sake. 13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father. 14 I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.


I am writing to you, little children . . .
Here he addresses the entire group.

I am writing to you, fathers . . .
Here he addresses those whom John taught directly.

because you know Him who has been from the beginning.
John repeats this phrase twice. He identifies himself in this verse as "him who has been from the beginning", which was established in chapter one.

I am writing to you, young men . . .
These are second generation believers who didn't hear John's teaching directly, but he has chosen to write to them to assure them that they have overcome the evil one.

CadyandZoe
Apr 10th 2017, 06:01 PM
A verse came up during today's sermon at church...

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Yes, this is predicated on the idea that Christians might sin, but if they do, that person has an advocate with the Father.

mailmandan
Apr 10th 2017, 07:06 PM
A verse came up during today's sermon at church...

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. If Christians never sinned at all, then this verse would be superfluous and so would 1 John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin (PRESENT TENSE), we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

CadyandZoe
Apr 11th 2017, 11:59 AM
You have for me already saying "protognostics". Unless you said that based on something other than facts. Why ask for evidence for what you already know to be true? You rely on a belief and argument of insignificance, which you claim proves apostles couldn't have been bothered with "protognostics", but this view of yours cannot be based on facts, only assumption. So when are you going to produce facts for your argument?

The scholars used the term "protognostics" because they couldn't find evidence of Gnosticism or Docetism during John's time. In case you didn't know, terms like "protognosticism" are the scholarly way of saying "we don't actually know."

I maintain that John was dealing with Pharisaical teaching, which fits the text better. And it's Pharisaical teaching that we find in our world today. I can only speak for the monotheistic religions but each of them, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have those people among their numbers that in some way or another closely resemble the Pharisees, who were a group of men dedicated to devout adherence to the Law of Moses as they understood it. These men were gathered into brotherhoods, similar to modern "Promise Keepers", holding each other accountable to righteousness as they understood it. And this is important and apropos to our discussion here.

Just as John addresses in his letters, there are men who believe that they can live without sin. This was true of the Pharisees and remains true of those who are devoted to the teachings of the Holiness Movement. Whatever modern form of "Pharisaical" teaching takes, each version shares one thing in common: a distorted measure of success. How does a sinner become a non-sinner? Those in the Holiness Movement, just like the Pharisees before them, redefine what a sin is. You might hear one of them say something similar to this, "I didn't sin, I simply made a mistake." Another thing they might say is, "I was just being human. God doesn't expect me to not be human does he?" John is speaking to these people and this mind set.

5 This 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. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but 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. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

Notice the contrast John sets up? What's important to John is how we walk, not what we say about ourselves. Do we walk in darkness or do we walk in the light? Anyone in the Holiness Movement who claims to have no sin is walking in darkness. Those who confess their sins are walking in the light. Those who say they have no sin do not have the truth in them; those who confess their sin are living in truth. Those who claim to have no sin make Jesus out to be a liar; but those who confess their sin he will cleanse.

Those who walk in darkness have lost the ability to see themselves as others see them, and refuse to confess themselves to be sinners like the rest of us. All Pharisees and Pharisee-like people have this one thing in common. They think they are NOT like other men. They do not confess their sins because according to them, they no longer sin.

Jesus tells a parable in Luke and I'll quote part of it here.

9 And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10 ďTwo men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ĎGod, I thank You that I am not like other people:

This is the mindset John was fighting.

Noeb
Apr 19th 2017, 04:08 AM
The scholars used the term "protognostics" because they couldn't find evidence of Gnosticism or Docetism during John's time. In case you didn't know, terms like "protognosticism" are the scholarly way of saying "we don't actually know." You're really something else. This is so wrong on all levels.

justbyfaith
Apr 28th 2017, 07:18 AM
I understand and know that I am a sinner saved by grace. And yet when I read my Bible, I find that God calls us to the standard of perfect holiness; and also declares that we can live up to it if we truly become born of Him (1 John 3:9).

I find that entire sanctifiation is a "second benefit" (2 Corinthians 1:15) sought out by those who are tired of the seemingy endles cycle of sinning and repenting, sinning and repenting.

The justified believer does not seek entire sanctification in order that he might be justified through being sanctified, for he is already justified; he seeks it out because it is a weight upon his conscience that he continues to sin.

To me the concept that we can come to a place where God has sanctified us wholly, and perfected us for ever (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, Hebrews 10:10,14-17), is good news. The prospect of being made perfect through the application of the blood of Jesus Christ is somethng that I desire with my whole heart.

CadyandZoe
Apr 28th 2017, 02:21 PM
I understand and know that I am a sinner saved by grace. And yet when I read my Bible, I find that God calls us to the standard of perfect holiness; and also declares that we can live up to it if we truly become born of Him (1 John 3:9).

I find that entire sanctifiation is a "second benefit" (2 Corinthians 1:15) sought out by those who are tired of the seemingy endles cycle of sinning and repenting, sinning and repenting.

The justified believer does not seek entire sanctification in order that he might be justified through being sanctified, for he is already justified; he seeks it out because it is a weight upon his conscience that he continues to sin.

To me the concept that we can come to a place where God has sanctified us wholly, and perfected us for ever (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, Hebrews 10:10,14-17), is good news. The prospect of being made perfect through the application of the blood of Jesus Christ is somethng that I desire with my whole heart.

The Bible does not present the transformation from sinners to perfect moral agents as a "second benefit" but the primary benefit of all those who believe and trust in Christ. Sanctification, in this lifetime, is a transformation of the mind and heart, including our willingness to see ourselves the way we truly are. I agree with your desire to be made perfect and this is also my desire. All Christians who are true believers want this for themselves. And as Paul says, anyone who wants this for themselves would not purposely live a life of sin. But entire sanctification takes place at his return, not yet.

justbyfaith
Apr 28th 2017, 05:53 PM
We look forward to being made like Him when we shall see Him as He is. But everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself even as He is pure.

justbyfaith
Apr 29th 2017, 04:02 AM
The question you need to ask is, Is the sinless blood of Jesus efficacious to cleanse us from all sin, to redeem us from all iniquity, to make us whiter than snow?

See 1 John 1:7, Titus 2:14, and Psalm 51:7.

justbyfaith
Apr 29th 2017, 04:09 AM
At what point is the blood applied to our sins? The moment we believe, or the moment we die?

I think it is the moment we believe, as we are justified by His blood when we believe. Therefore other operations of the blood of Jesus (such as sanctification and cleansing) would also be in operation the moment we believe the Lord for them. See Hebrews 13:12 and 1 John 1:7. And sanctification through the blood is complete according to 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24.

Perfection is offered to us through application of the blood, see Hebrews 10:14 KJV.

Brother Mark
Apr 29th 2017, 12:30 PM
If Christians never sinned at all, then this verse would be superfluous and so would 1 John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin (PRESENT TENSE), we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Do believers HAVE to willingly sin?

Brother Mark
Apr 29th 2017, 12:32 PM
We look forward to being made like Him when we shall see Him as He is. But everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself even as He is pure.

Until we are like Him, how can we say we are completely sinless in all things? THat would mean we are completely selfless and have dealt even with the things that we do not yet know about.

justbyfaith
Apr 29th 2017, 10:37 PM
God does it ahead of time because of our hope in Him. Our hope in His return is the purifiying factor.

Now in 1 Corinthians 4:4, the fact that Paul is unaware of anything that might be determined as sin that the Lord would hold against him, does not mean that there was no sin for him to be judged by. But it does not mean that there was sin, either.

mailmandan
Apr 29th 2017, 11:00 PM
Do believers HAVE to willingly sin? To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and accidently fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

Brother Mark
Apr 29th 2017, 11:04 PM
To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and accidently fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

I wasn't referring to a continuous action. I am asking if believers HAVE To sin willfully? Even one time? Are we so lacking in power, that we have no ability to keep from sinning willfully?

Brother Mark
Apr 29th 2017, 11:06 PM
God does it ahead of time because of our hope in Him. Our hope in His return is the purifiying factor.

Now in 1 Corinthians 4:4, the fact that Paul is unaware of anything that might be determined as sin that the Lord would hold against him, does not mean that there was no sin for him to be judged by. But it does not mean that there was sin, either.

But the scripture says, we won't be like Him until He returns. It doesn't say we will be like Him now, does it?

mailmandan
Apr 29th 2017, 11:37 PM
I wasn't referring to a continuous action. I am asking if believers HAVE To sin willfully? Even one time? Are we so lacking in power, that we have no ability to keep from sinning willfully? Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 26:41 that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. In Galatians 5:17, we read - For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. The struggle is real! The solution is found in verse 16 - But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. Our power is from the Spirit, but we must walk by the Spirit in order to receive this power.

Brother Mark
Apr 30th 2017, 12:58 AM
Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 26:41 that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Yes. At that time. It is still true but he rightly discerned their situation.


In Galatians 5:17, we read - For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. The struggle is real! The solution is found in verse 16 - But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. Our power is from the Spirit, but we must walk by the Spirit in order to receive this power.

I am not denying the struggle. I am asking if Jesus power is greater than the power of sin? Do you HAVE to willingly sin even one time?

How about this passage...

1 Cor 10:13
13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.
NASB

Is the solution in vs 16 above you quoted, a genuine solution that means we do NOT have to sin? Can we really overcome willful sin or not? IMO, it is a very good question to ask. If we are not careful, we can make the willful sin in us more powerful than the God in us.

mailmandan
Apr 30th 2017, 01:15 AM
Yes. At that time. It is still true but he rightly discerned their situation.

I am not denying the struggle. I am asking if Jesus power is greater than the power of sin? Do you HAVE to willingly sin even one time?

How about this passage...

1 Cor 10:13
13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.
NASB

Is the solution in vs 16 above you quoted, a genuine solution that means we do NOT have to sin? Can we really overcome willful sin or not? IMO, it is a very good question to ask. If we are not careful, we can make the willful sin in us more powerful than the God in us. I'm yet to meet anyone who has successfully overcome all sin and has become sinless, without fault or defect, flawless, 100% of the time. There are people who claim it, but it doesn't take long to see otherwise if you are around them long enough. This doesn't mean that the power of sin is greater than the power of Jesus. It just means we fall short of sinless perfection. Is it possible that an NFL football team can go an entire season without one penalty or error? The players are not forced to make penalties or errors, yet how many teams are without penalties or errors 100% of the time the entire season? Not sure if that's the best analogy to use, but it did come to mind.

Brother Mark
Apr 30th 2017, 01:59 AM
I'm yet to meet anyone who has successfully overcome all sin and has become sinless, without fault or defect, flawless, 100% of the time. There are people who claim it, but it doesn't take long to see otherwise if you are around them long enough. This doesn't mean that the power of sin is greater than the power of Jesus. It just means we fall short of sinless perfection. Is it possible that an NFL football team can go an entire season without one penalty or error? The players are not forced to make penalties or errors, yet how many teams are without penalties or errors 100% of the time the entire season? Not sure if that's the best analogy to use, but it did come to mind.

My question wasn't if someone overcome all sin and become flawless. My question was do we HAVE to willingly sin? There's a difference.

We sin in ignorance. We sin by accident. But the stronghold, where we sin willfully, knowing that what we are doing is wrong... do we HAVE to sin willfully?

Is this verse true? Is there really a way out or not?

1 Cor 10:13
13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.
NASB

mailmandan
Apr 30th 2017, 02:17 AM
My question wasn't if someone overcome all sin and become flawless. My question was do we HAVE to willingly sin? There's a difference.

We sin in ignorance. We sin by accident. But the stronghold, where we sin willfully, knowing that what we are doing is wrong... do we HAVE to sin willfully?

Is this verse true? Is there really a way out or not?

1 Cor 10:13
13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.
NASB I believe there is a way out, but we don't always take it.

Brother Mark
Apr 30th 2017, 02:27 AM
I believe there is a way out, but we don't always take it.

Agreed. And that is our fault. We CAN always take it even if we don't. God has provided a way out and we should not make excuses for our sin. Rather, we should strive to tap into what He has provided and we should preach what He has provided.

IMO, there are two ditches in the modern church... 1 preaches we can be totally sinless and exactly like Christ before His return... overlooking the growing process of sanctification and overlooking the sins the Lord has not yet pointed out. The 2nd preaches that we are incapable, even with the help of Christ, of overcoming sin. Both are ditches. We can overcome all the sin the Lord points out to us but we often do not do so overnight. Nor, do we overcome all those sins we are blind to, or are not aware of. Till self is completely swallowed up in love we will do selfish things and IMO, self worship is the root of all of our sin.

justbyfaith
May 1st 2017, 09:30 PM
But the scripture says, we won't be like Him until He returns. It doesn't say we will be like Him now, does it?

What does it mean to be purified even as He is pure? Is He not completely pure? It says that the catalyst for being purified even as He is pure is our hope in Him that we will be made like Him when we see Him as He is. On that day we will receive a glorified body, free from the presence of sin. If we hope in this, He purifies us from sin in the present tense, EVEN AS HE IS PURE. iow, He does ahead of time what we hope He will do in the future, at the point of His return.

justbyfaith
May 1st 2017, 09:38 PM
Look at Hebrews 10:26-31.

If we cannot keep from WILLFULLY sinning, then God is going to punish everyone with hell.

Brother Mark
May 1st 2017, 10:25 PM
What does it mean to be purified even as He is pure? Is He not completely pure? It says that the catalyst for being purified even as He is pure is our hope in Him that we will be made like Him when we see Him as He is. On that day we will receive a glorified body, free from the presence of sin. If we hope in this, He purifies us from sin in the present tense, EVEN AS HE IS PURE. iow, He does ahead of time what we hope He will do in the future, at the point of His return.

Well, there are two statements there...

1. When He appears, we will be like Him.
2. Purify ourselves even as He is pure.

1 doesn't happen till He appears.
2 happens when we confess our sins and he forgives us and cleanses us.

All willful sin we can overcome. Thing is, He deals with us as children (Heb. 12). When a parent starts training their child, they start simple. One of the biggies is potty training. We teach our children to walk, to talk, to tell the truth, etc. We train them in the way they should go, but many things wait till the proper time. We teach them to share early on. Eventually we teach them to give. Finally we teach them to give sacrificially.

One doesn't get to where He is exactly like Christ in this life. But He can overcome his known strongholds, his known sin. But when he gets there, the Lord will deal with him on something else and so on till he is either taken or dies.

chad
May 1st 2017, 11:58 PM
But surely it is possible for the righteous to commit sin (This is continuous action - a matter of practice) by yielding the members of their body as instruments of unrighteousness unto bondage of sin as Paul writes in Romans 6:13-14 and Romans 6:19?



To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and accidently fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

justbyfaith
May 3rd 2017, 01:14 AM
Well, there are two statements there...

1. When He appears, we will be like Him.
2. Purify ourselves even as He is pure.

1 doesn't happen till He appears.
2 happens when we confess our sins and he forgives us and cleanses us.

All willful sin we can overcome. Thing is, He deals with us as children (Heb. 12). When a parent starts training their child, they start simple. One of the biggies is potty training. We teach our children to walk, to talk, to tell the truth, etc. We train them in the way they should go, but many things wait till the proper time. We teach them to share early on. Eventually we teach them to give. Finally we teach them to give sacrificially.

One doesn't get to where He is exactly like Christ in this life. But He can overcome his known strongholds, his known sin. But when he gets there, the Lord will deal with him on something else and so on till he is either taken or dies.

You missed the point entirely. The point being that through our hope that we have in Him, He presently purifies us EVEN AS HE IS PURE. He is completely pure; so this is saying that the one who has this hope in Him purifies himself COMPLETELY through that hope. Look also at Titus 2:14 (KJV) or Hebrews 10:10,14-17 (KJV) or 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 (KJV).

Then also in 1 John 1:7 He cleanses us from ALL sin via His precious blood. 1 John 1:8 would appear to contradict the statement of 1 John 1:7 unless you define 1 John 1:8 with 1 John 1:10.

Thus, "If we say that we have no sin..." effectivey means "If we say that we have not sinned..." because it is saying, "If we say that we have no record of sin..."

And therefore the fact that we have been cleansed from all sin is in no way contradicted by the true meaning of 1 John 1:8.

Also, according to 1 John 1:5 there is no darkness in God, and in 1 John 3:5 there is no sin in Christ. According to 1 John 5:20 every true believer is in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.

Brother Mark
May 3rd 2017, 01:29 PM
You missed the point entirely. The point being that through our hope that we have in Him, He presently purifies us EVEN AS HE IS PURE. He is completely pure; so this is saying that the one who has this hope in Him purifies himself COMPLETELY through that hope. Look also at Titus 2:14 (KJV) or Hebrews 10:10,14-17 (KJV) or 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 (KJV).

Then also in 1 John 1:7 He cleanses us from ALL sin via His precious blood. 1 John 1:8 wouod appear to contradict the statement of 1 John 1:7 unless you define 1 John 1:8 with 1 John 1:10.

Thus, "If we say that we have no sin..." effectivey means "If we say that we have not sinned..." because it is saying, "If we say that we have no record of sin..."

And therefore the fact that we have been cleansed from all sin is in no way contradicted by the true meaning of 1 John 1:8.

Also, according to 1 John 1:5 there is no darkness in God, and in 1 John 3:5 there is no sin in Christ. According to 1 John 5:20 every true believer is in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.

Paul is probably the greatest believer in the NT. Early in his ministry, he called himself an apostle. Later, he started calling himself the "least of all the apostles". At the end of his ministry, when he was in jail, he wrote that he was/is the "worst of sinners". The closer one gets to God, the more aware he becomes of his self centeredness which is the root of all sin. We can overcome willful sin. But, as we grow closer to God, His love (lack of selfishness) becomes amazingly clear, while our own selfish nature becomes easier to see.

Can we overcome sin? We can absolutely overcome all the sin we know about (i.e. the sin God convicts us about). Are we like Jesus in all ways? Not until He returns and sets us free from our earthly body. Is His image in us becoming clearer? Yes.

There's no need for me to change what scripture says. The witness of Paul about himself bears it out. Scripture doesn't say "anyone who says he has not sinned" no matter how bad someone might want it to say that. It says "anyone who says he has no sin". there's big difference in those two readings and one would be wise to take the passage (as stated) to heart rather than to change the wording to fit their own agenda.

Noeb
May 3rd 2017, 08:23 PM
Paul is probably the greatest believer in the NT. Early in his ministry, he called himself an apostle. Later, he started calling himself the "least of all the apostles". At the end of his ministry, when he was in jail, he wrote that he was/is the "worst of sinners". The closer one gets to God, the more aware he becomes of his self centeredness which is the root of all sin. not at all what's happening in either text. Least of apostles and first sinner for the same reason. There's no progression here. Below is Paul's point.

1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Timothy 1:13-16 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
1 Timothy 2:1-6 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

justbyfaith
May 4th 2017, 01:30 AM
If 1 John 1:8 is not defined by 1 John 1:10, then there are certain things in the Bible that are contradictions. How can I have sin in me if He has cleansed me with His blood from ALL sin? There is also no sin in Christ, and no darkness in God. How can I be in God and Christ then and have there also be sin and darkness in me? If I am in Christ and God that would place my sin and darkness in God and Christ. And we as believers are in God and Christ (1 John 5:20).

When Paul called himself the chief of sinners, he had just previously stated how he was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious. I believe that Paul was stating that he was the chief of sinners in the same way that someone in AA might say that they are stilll an alcoholic even after 20-40 years of complete sobriety.

Paul was saying that his past (not his present) was so bad that there was no one who outdid him as concerning the extent of his prior sinfulness.

justbyfaith
May 4th 2017, 01:38 AM
Are we like Jesus in all ways?

See 1 John 3:7, 1 John 3:3, and 1 John 2:6

He is able to redeem you from all iniquity. Titus 2:14.

As he is, so are we in this world...1 John 4:17b

Brother Mark
May 4th 2017, 02:08 AM
See 1 John 3:7, 1 John 3:3, and 1 John 2:6

He is able to redeem you from all iniquity. Titus 2:14.

As he is, so are we in this world...1 John 4:17b

You didn't answer the rest. We have His image in us, but as the verse you quoted earlier states "When He appears we will be like Him". Not before.

And the scriptures still say "That he who says he has no sin is a liar". There's just no getting around how the Holy Spirit chose to word that.

Noeb
May 4th 2017, 02:54 AM
If 1 John 1:8 is not defined by 1 John 1:10, then there are certain things in the Bible that are contradictions.Defined? No. Clarified because they are both talking about the same philosophy? Yes. If we minimize the importance of sin to the point that it doesn't matter whether we do it or not, the truth is not in us, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. Which is the teaching the seducers were spreading around. John writes in a contrast theme style contrasting the behavior of these seducers with the behavior of true brethren. If you are sinning you are hurting your brethren. Brethren love brethren, they don't hurt them.



How can I have sin in me if He has cleansed me with His blood from ALL sin?Sin is not a thing that it can be in you. When Paul said sin that is in me, that is in my flesh he was talking about walking/operating without God, trying to accomplish in the flesh what can only be accomplished in the Spirit/In Christ.



There is also no sin in Christ, and no darkness in God. How can I be in God and Christ then and have there also be sin and darkness in me? If I am in Christ and God that would place my sin and darkness in God and Christ.In Christ/God is about relationship, not physicality.
In the flesh/dead - without God in this world (Eph 2).
In the Spirit/alive in spiritual places in Christ Jesus - with God in the world (Eph 2).
If you sin you have an advocate because you remain in relationship and have fellowship. You don't fall out of Christ/God. You don't lose relationship and fellowship. Committing a sin doesn't place sin in Christ/God.

justbyfaith
May 6th 2017, 09:06 PM
Re: post #173 last statement.

If we sin willfully after having received the knowedge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins remains but only a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries of the Lord.

Re: post #172:

We are purfiied even as He is pure through our hope in Him that we will be made like Him when He appears and we see Him as He is. And therefore this purification, because it happens as the result of our hope, happens at the time our hope. EVEN before He appears.

This is a purification wherein we become pure EVEN AS HE IS PURE. He is completely pure, therefore in this hope we purify ourselves completely.

justbyfaith
May 6th 2017, 10:16 PM
The Bible doesn't contradict itself.

mailmandan
May 7th 2017, 01:40 PM
Re: post #173 last statement.

If we sin willfully after having received the knowedge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins remains but only a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries of the Lord. In Hebrews 10:26, To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin - (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God - (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).


Re: post #172:

We are purfiied even as He is pure through our hope in Him that we will be made like Him when He appears and we see Him as He is. And therefore this purification, because it happens as the result of our hope, happens at the time our hope. EVEN before He appears.

This is a purification wherein we become pure EVEN AS HE IS PURE. He is completely pure, therefore in this hope we purify ourselves completely. Interesting. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.. (Hebrews 11:1). Only genuine believers have this hope and are pure because of the blood of Christ. None of us are are completely pure (exactly as Christ is) "in of ourselves."

justbyfaith
May 7th 2017, 02:46 PM
In Hebrews 10:26, To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin - (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God - (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

Interesting. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.. (Hebrews 11:1). Only genuine believers have this hope and are pure because of the blood of Christ. None of us are are completely pure (exactly as Christ is) "in of ourselves."

He who commits sin is the servant of sin, and Jesus wasn't being redundant when He said that. He was referring to the fact that sin is by its very nature addictive; so if you commit one sin you have now become the slave of that type of sin. If having been set free you decide to sin "just this one time" because of such teaching as you have proclaimed above...you will find yourself once again in bondage to sin, held captive by the cords of the pleasure that it offers you.

Also, in the KJV it is rendered, faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

CadyandZoe
May 7th 2017, 02:51 PM
Re: post #173 last statement.

If we sin willfully after having received the knowedge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins remains but only a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries of the Lord.

Re: post #172:

We are purfiied even as He is pure through our hope in Him that we will be made like Him when He appears and we see Him as He is. And therefore this purification, because it happens as the result of our hope, happens at the time our hope. EVEN before He appears.

This is a purification wherein we become pure EVEN AS HE IS PURE. He is completely pure, therefore in this hope we purify ourselves completely.

Contrary to popular belief, Paul isn't talking about "willfully sinning" as we understand it. In our idiom, "sin" is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. And while this definition is accurate, it isn't complete. The original concept behind the Greek word "hamartano" also included the idea, "to be without a share in." Therefore, to "sin" can also indicate the act of a person who wishes to part company with the people of God, no longer considered to be a fellow citizen in the nation of Israel.

For instance, we know from the Ten Commandments that sleeping with another man's wife is sinful in the first sense, i.e. a transgression against divine law. But it may or may not be a "sin" in the second sense. The man may have willfully slept with another man's wife, but not willfully decided to part company with his people, his nation, and his God. Or a Jew might wake up one day and say to himself, "I'm tired of all these rules. I no longer want to be an Israelite. I don't care if I remain among the people of God." That man will have sex with his neighbor's wife, not out of lust, but with the intent of marking his departure from the nation.

This is the meaning in Hebrews 10. In the book of Hebrews, Paul is attempting to convince and persuade his fellow Hebrews not to abandon faith in Jesus, which has been revealed to be God's will for his people. To abandon Jesus is to "sin willfully" that is, to abandon Jesus is to "voluntarily consider oneself not to have a share in the blessings of God."

We all sin willfully in the first sense, but our sinning willfully doesn't necessarily indicate our wish to leave the faith and to leave the household of God.

mailmandan
May 7th 2017, 04:29 PM
He who commits sin is the servant of sin, and Jesus wasn't being redundant when He said that. He was referring to the fact that sin is by its very nature addictive; so if you commit one sin you have now become the slave of that type of sin. If having been set free you decide to sin "just this one time" because of such teaching as you have proclaimed above...you will find yourself once again in bondage to sin, held captive by the cords of the pleasure that it offers you.

Also, in the KJV it is rendered, faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. According to your argument, anything short of being sinless 100% of the time (exactly as Jesus is) results in being in bondage to sin. I already properly harmonized Scripture with Scripture in post #176. Those who believe they live a sinless, without fault or defect, flawless, absolute perfect life 100% of the time (exactly is Jesus lived) are suffering from a terminal case of self-righteousness (1 John 1:8-10).

Faith being the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen does not help your sinless perfection argument.

justbyfaith
May 7th 2017, 07:33 PM
According to your argument, anything short of being sinless 100% of the time (exactly as Jesus is) results in being in bondage to sin. I already properly harmonized Scripture with Scripture in post #176. Those who believe they live a sinless, without fault or defect, flawless, absolute perfect life 100% of the time (exactly is Jesus lived) are suffering from a terminal case of self-righteousness (1 John 1:8-10).

Faith being the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen does not help your sinless perfection argument.

Actually it does, if you compare Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) to Romans 8:23-25, and compare that to Galatians 4:5-7. Even my body has been redeemed through my adoption into the family of God.

I believe that Galatians 2:20 is the key to entire sanctification (living 100% perfect 100% of the time), which is a biblical doctrine (see Hebrews 10:10,14-17, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, Titus 2:14, 1 John 3:5-9, and many others). If I consistently let Jesus live in me and through me, the life that He lives in me and through me will be perfect, because He is perfect. This is abiding in Christ (1 John 3:6). If I am the one who is doing the living, then I will be sinning left and right. In understanding these things I am not self-righteous; but am letting Christ's righteousness be my standard. I am not righteous in myself, but Him living His life in me and through me is my practical righteousness (and His blood applied to my life is my imputed righteousness; which does not only impute but imparts righteousness to me: see Romans 5:19 and Matthew 5:6 and Hebrews 10:29, 13:12).

justbyfaith
May 7th 2017, 07:42 PM
Contrary to popular belief, Paul isn't talking about "willfully sinning" as we understand it. In our idiom, "sin" is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. And while this definition is accurate, it isn't complete. The original concept behind the Greek word "hamartano" also included the idea, "to be without a share in." Therefore, to "sin" can also indicate the act of a person who wishes to part company with the people of God, no longer considered to be a fellow citizen in the nation of Israel.

For instance, we know from the Ten Commandments that sleeping with another man's wife is sinful in the first sense, i.e. a transgression against divine law. But it may or may not be a "sin" in the second sense. The man may have willfully slept with another man's wife, but not willfully decided to part company with his people, his nation, and his God. Or a Jew might wake up one day and say to himself, "I'm tired of all these rules. I no longer want to be an Israelite. I don't care if I remain among the people of God." That man will have sex with his neighbor's wife, not out of lust, but with the intent of marking his departure from the nation.

This is the meaning in Hebrews 10. In the book of Hebrews, Paul is attempting to convince and persuade his fellow Hebrews not to abandon faith in Jesus, which has been revealed to be God's will for his people. To abandon Jesus is to "sin willfully" that is, to abandon Jesus is to "voluntarily consider oneself not to have a share in the blessings of God."

We all sin willfully in the first sense, but our sinning willfully doesn't necessarily indicate our wish to leave the faith and to leave the household of God.

Now I am of the personal opinion that if anyone is currently committing adultery on their spouse, they are not a child of God. That is what 1 John 3:4-9 is all about: the fact that the consistent walk of a born again Christian will be accoridng to righteousness, not sin; even if you buy the malarkey that you can keep committing wilful sins because each time it is "just that one time". Which is what some people wil get from this teaching that, oh, it is talking about the PRACTICE OF SIN, and that one-time sins, if you call them that, will not get you into trouble. That you would have to commit the same sin 100 times before it means you aren't truly a child of God. This prolongs the repentance of many people until it is too late impaho.

CadyandZoe
May 7th 2017, 10:58 PM
Now I am of the personal opinion that if anyone is currently committing adultery on their spouse, they are not a child of God. That is what 1 John 3:4-9 is all about: the fact that the consistent walk of a born again Christian will be accoridng to righteousness, not sin; even if you buy the malarkey that you can keep committing wilful sins because each time it is "just that one time". Which is what some people wil get from this teaching that, oh, it is talking about the PRACTICE OF SIN, and that one-time sins, if you call them that, will not get you into trouble. That you would have to commit the same sin 100 times before it means you aren't truly a child of God. This prolongs the repentance of many people until it is too late impaho.

I maintain that ALL sins are willful sins.

justbyfaith
May 8th 2017, 04:01 AM
Then if anyone sins period after having received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left but a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation that shall devour the adversaries. Hebrews 10:26. Is that what you believe?

I maintain that there is a sin not unto death. 1 John 5:16.

mailmandan
May 9th 2017, 11:42 PM
If I consistently let Jesus live in me and through me, the life that He lives in me and through me will be perfect, because He is perfect. Much easier said than done and we all fall short of sinless perfection. 1 John 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, (PRESENT TENSE) we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


This is abiding in Christ (1 John 3:6). To "abide" in Christ simply means to stay or remain. This is not something that only sinless, perfect super saints do. 1 John 4:15 - Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.


If I am the one who is doing the living, then I will be sinning left and right. In understanding these things I am not self-righteous; but am letting Christ's righteousness be my standard. I am not righteous in myself, but Him living His life in me and through me is my practical righteousness (and His blood applied to my life is my imputed righteousness; which does not only impute but imparts righteousness to me: see Romans 5:19 and Matthew 5:6 and Hebrews 10:29, 13:12). Those who say they have no sin (PRESENT TENSE) are deceived and the truth is not in them, according to Scripture (1 John 1:8). Claiming to be sinless 100% of the time is still self righteousness, even if you claim to accomplish this because Christ lives in you. The Bible speaks of IMPUTED righteousness (Romans 4:5-6, 11, 24) but not "imparted" righteousness, which is taught in Roman Catholicism. Were you taught that believers can obtain entire sanctification (in their lifetime) in the church of the Nazarene?

justbyfaith
May 10th 2017, 01:12 AM
The Bible does indeed teach imparted righteousness as well as the imputed kind...see Romans 5:19, 1 John 3:7, and Matthew 5:6.

I presently have a record of sin in my life....I have sinned. That does not mean that I am sinning in the present moment, nor does it mean that I have to be sinning for the next five minutes, hour, day, week, month, year, decade, or for the rest of my life!

You have misintepreted 1 John 1:8. The way you interpret it it contradicts 1 John 3:5-9, and then you try to change the meaning of those verses to fit your misinterpretation of 1 John 1:8!

This is not going to fly with God on the day of judgment. Think about this...if I am right and you are wrong and you never prevail with God to obtain entire sanctification....what will you do if He requires that you have a perfect heart at the moment of your death? Where will you go if you "die in your sins" (John 8:24)?

justbyfaith
May 10th 2017, 01:17 AM
Also, Jesus is coming back for a church that is holy and without blemish--without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. Will you be caught up to meet Him in the air when He returns to take away His bride?

mailmandan
May 10th 2017, 11:20 AM
The Bible does indeed teach imparted righteousness as well as the imputed kind...see Romans 5:19, 1 John 3:7, and Matthew 5:6. The words "imparted righteousness" are not found in Romans 5:19, 1 John 3:7 or Matthew 5:6 or anywhere else in the Bible. To the contrary, we find in Romans 4:5,6 - "faith is accounted for righteousness/God IMPUTES righteousness apart from works." It's no different in Romans 5:19. In 1 John 3:7, "the one who practices righteousness is righteous." That is descriptive language of those who already are righteous (they practice righteousness). Righteousness that has been IMPUTED, not imparted. *Children of God do not practice righteousness in order to become righteous, but BECAUSE they are righteous; just as children of the devil do not practice sin in order to become children of the devil, but BECAUSE they are children of the devil (1 John 3:8). To hunger and thirst for righteousness is also descriptive language and is not a proof text for imparted righteousness. Does the church that you presently attend teach "imparted righteousness" and that Christians can obtain "entire sanctification" in their lifetime and they must or else?! Which church is that? The church of the Nazarene?


I presently have a record of sin in my life....I have sinned. 1 John 1:10 - If we say that we have not sinned (PAST TENSE).. You are batting 50%.


That does not mean that I am sinning in the present moment, nor does it mean that I have to be sinning for the next five minutes, hour, day, week, month, year, decade, or for the rest of my life! 1 John 1:8 clearly says - If we say that we have no sin, (PRESENT TENSE) we deceived ourselves, and the truth is not in us. It doesn't give a time line in minutes, hours, days etc.. yet this is in the PRESENT TENSE. You claim to be in a state of presently living an ongoing sinless, perfect life so you are deceived.


You have misintepreted 1 John 1:8. The way you interpret it it contradicts 1 John 3:5-9, and then you try to change the meaning of those verses to fit your misinterpretation of 1 John 1:8! I did not try to change anything. The NT was written in Greek, not English. 1 John 3:6 - Present (linear) active articular participle like menwn above, "the one who keeps on sinning" (lives a life of sin, not mere occasional acts of sin as amarthsa, aorist active participle, would mean). The way you interpret 1 John 3:5-9 contradicts 1 John 1:8.


This is not going to fly with God on the day of judgment. Think about this...if I am right and you are wrong and you never prevail with God to obtain entire sanctification....what will you do if He requires that you have a perfect heart at the moment of your death? If salvation is based on reaching entire sanctification in this lifetime, then nobody is going to heaven. Salvation is through faith in Christ and is not based on the merits of our performance/sinless perfection/works. It's obvious that you are trusting in your best efforts to live a sinless, perfect life as the means of your salvation instead of trusting in Christ's finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation.


Where will you go if you "die in your sins" (John 8:24)? In John 8:24, Jesus said - Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." Jesus said nothing here about living a sinless, perfect life or else you will die in your sins.

mailmandan
May 10th 2017, 11:29 AM
Also, Jesus is coming back for a church that is holy and without blemish--without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. Will you be caught up to meet Him in the air when He returns to take away His bride? The Church, the body of Christ, is holy and without blemish--without spot, or wrinkle because of the blood of Christ and not because Christians live a sinless, without fault or defect, flawless, absolute perfect life 100% of the time (exactly as Jesus lived). Do you believe that only your particular denomination/church fits that description? Exactly which church do you attend?

justbyfaith
May 10th 2017, 02:10 PM
The words "imparted righteousness" are not found in Romans 5:19, 1 John 3:7 or Matthew 5:6 or anywhere else in the Bible. To the contrary, we find in Romans 4:5,6 - "faith is accounted for righteousness/God IMPUTES righteousness apart from works." It's no different in Romans 5:19. In 1 John 3:7, "the one who practices righteousness is righteous." That is descriptive language of those who already are righteous (they practice righteousness). Righteousness that has been IMPUTED, not imparted. *Children of God do not practice righteousness in order to become righteous, but BECAUSE they are righteous; just as children of the devil do not practice sin in order to become children of the devil, but BECAUSE they are children of the devil (1 John 3:8). To hunger and thirst for righteousness is also descriptive language and is not a proof text for imparted righteousness. Does the church that you presently attend teach "imparted righteousness" and that Christians can obtain "entire sanctification" in their lifetime and they must or else?! Which church is that? The church of the Nazarene?

1 John 1:10 - If we say that we have not sinned (PAST TENSE).. You are batting 50%.

1 John 1:8 clearly says - If we say that we have no sin, (PRESENT TENSE) we deceived ourselves, and the truth is not in us. It doesn't give a time line in minutes, hours, days etc.. yet this is in the PRESENT TENSE. You claim to be in a state of presently living an ongoing sinless, perfect life so you are deceived.

I did not try to change anything. The NT was written in Greek, not English. 1 John 3:6 - Present (linear) active articular participle like menwn above, "the one who keeps on sinning" (lives a life of sin, not mere occasional acts of sin as amarthsa, aorist active participle, would mean). The way you interpret 1 John 3:5-9 contradicts 1 John 1:8.

If salvation is based on reaching entire sanctification in this lifetime, then nobody is going to heaven. Salvation is through faith in Christ and is not based on the merits of our performance/sinless perfection/works. It's obvious that you are trusting in your best efforts to live a sinless, perfect life as the means of your salvation instead of trusting in Christ's finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation.

In John 8:24, Jesus said - Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." Jesus said nothing here about living a sinless, perfect life or else you will die in your sins.

mailmandan, you appear to be teaching by your understanding of 1 John 1:8 that everyone is currently sinning 100% of the time. Your understanding of "If we say that we have no sin (present tense), we decieve ourselves and the truth us not in us" implies that if I do not have the understanding that I am presently sinning, I am not holding to the truth of God.

This idea truly contradicts any understanding of 1 John 3:5-9. Even if in that passage it is saying that we do not any longer practice sin as a lifestyle, this still contradicts the idea that we are all sinning in the present tense to the point that I have always been sinning and never will cease from sinning to the day of my death. Thus in your theology repentance is an impossibility.

1 John 3:7, Matthew 5:6, and Romans 5:19 do indeed teach an imparted righteousness even if they do not use the word "imparted". You are mincing words. The word "Trinity" isn't found in the Bible either. Does that mean it isn't a biblical doctrine? Therefore the concept of imparted righteousness is in those verses even if the word "imparted" isn't found in them.

And you say that I'm trusting in my performance, that is simply not true. I believe that appropriating the blood of Jesus Christ will affect my performance, as by the obedience of the one shall many be made (not just accounted as) righteous. (Romans 5:19, in case you didn't look it up the last time I referenced it)

If justify means to merely declare one as being righteous, consider that it is impossible for God to lie, so if He declares me righteous it means I am righteous. Now see 1 John 3:7. He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.. This takes place via the fact that God has the power to declare those things that are not as though they are, thus creating a new reality (Romans 4:17).

Therefore when it says in the scriptures that I am justified by His blood, He not only says I am righteous in that but He imparts righteousness to me. See also Hebrews 10:29, 13:12.

justbyfaith
May 10th 2017, 02:24 PM
It doesn't matter which church I attend as I don't get my doctrine from any denomination but from the Bible (thought I understand that the Nazarene Chiurch is in agreement with me).

SeekFirstTheKingdom
May 10th 2017, 02:31 PM
I'm pretty sure his point was that whichever fellowship you're a part of, there is someone who is imperfect and in some sort of sin either now or at some point in the future, which was brought up in response to your suggesting that Jesus is coming back for the spotless bride etc. In other words, to have you consider the fact that unless your fellowship is in sinless perfection, you might want to ask yourself the same question you posed with respect to Jesus coming back for that group.

I'm pretty sure his point was that the LORD Jesus Christ is the one who presents that group faultless before the Father, opposed to Jesus coming to that group and saying "Wow, you guys are sinless on your own, you're the group I came for" etc. I do realize that you aren't suggesting that you or your sinless perfection camp claim to be sinless of your own power, but by the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I think it's pretty important for you to consider the implications of what you're saying/claiming.

If you are correct, one sin at the wrong time right before Jesus gets that spotless group, and your whole eternity changes. I can't help but think on the publican and the tax collector.

The one who went home justified wasn't the one saying "Thank you Father, that I am not one of these hyper-grace people deceived by false teachers, that I am completely sinless and perfect". Nope, I would much rather have an attitude of "Father, have mercy on me, for I know the scriptures, I have overcome in certain areas by your grace and by the power of Your Holy Spirit, but I am in big trouble because I know that Jesus is the only sinless spotless perfect Lamb".

And for the record, I WAS in the sinless-perfection camp not a year and a half or 2 years ago. And I do despise hyper-grace, as well as false teachers. I am not defending this position as means to give myself and other brethren a license to sin. Just important to clarify that, because some of what you posted suggests that anyone who doesn't hold your doctrine is automatically hyper-grace advocacy deceived by false teachers, which just isn't the case.

justbyfaith
May 10th 2017, 02:40 PM
I'm pretty sure his point was that whichever fellowship you're a part of, there is someone who is imperfect and in some sort of sin either now or at some point in the future, which was brought up in response to your suggesting that Jesus is coming back for the spotless bride etc. In other words, to have you consider the fact that unless your fellowship is in sinless perfection, you might want to ask yourself the same question you posed with respect to Jesus coming back for that group.

See Ephesians 5:26-27. In another place you said that you don't reject the doctrine of entire sanctification based on any human teacher and that you are not among those who know not the scriptures neither the power of God (as I quoted from the Lord Himself to describe some of you). But you appear to be ignorant of what it says in the verses I just referenced. Because I basically quoted them before without referencing them, and you seemed to think that the concept isn't in the Bible.

SeekFirstTheKingdom
May 10th 2017, 02:57 PM
See Ephesians 5:26-27. In another place you said that you don't reject the doctrine of entire sanctification based on any human teacher and that you are not among those who know not the scriptures neither the power of God (as I quoted from the Lord Himself to describe some of you). But you appear to be ignorant of what it says in the verses I just referenced. Because I basically quoted them before without referencing them, and you seemed to think that the concept isn't in the Bible.

Again, I am very familiar with Ephesians 5:26-27, and am not ignorant of what you're discussing. I simply disagree that I will be spotless or without blemish by anything I did (sinless perfection camp), but that the only spotless sinless Lamb (Jesus the Christ) will present me before the Father without spot or blemish. Also, perhaps you are ignorant in the capacity that you suggest that anyone who doesn't agree with the sinless perfection doctrine rejects entire sanctification, which isn't the case.

We believe that the LORD Jesus Christ will finish the good work He has begun in us, and we will be entirely sanctified. We just don't believe in the exact same capacity that you do. Also, I don't know if it's just because I am sick today and perhaps more easily agitated than usual, but you're coming across to me as arrogant and with a religious spirit. Either way, we can agree to disagree with no problems there, but who are you to accuse me of not knowing scriptures/concepts and throwing me into a blanket statement group of people deceived by false teachers and hyper-grace just because I don't hold the same doctrine you do? I was in the sinless perfection camp like I said, I am no longer there. That doesn't mean I am ignorant of the scriptures or that I subscribe to hyper-grace, or that false teachers influenced my position/understanding.

keck553
May 11th 2017, 12:45 AM
It doesn't matter which church I attend as I don't get my doctrine from any denomination but from the Bible (thought I understand that the Nazarene Chiurch is in agreement with me).

What doctrine is the Church of the Nazarene in agreement with you? Entire Sanctification? The Nazarene doctrine of entire sanctification in no way implies we don't sin.

justbyfaith
May 11th 2017, 04:19 AM
What doctrine is the Church of the Nazarene in agreement with you? Entire Sanctification? The Nazarene doctrine of entire sanctification in no way implies we don't sin.

What does it imply then?

justbyfaith
May 11th 2017, 04:22 AM
Again, I am very familiar with Ephesians 5:26-27, and am not ignorant of what you're discussing. I simply disagree that I will be spotless or without blemish by anything I did (sinless perfection camp), but that the only spotless sinless Lamb (Jesus the Christ) will present me before the Father without spot or blemish. Also, perhaps you are ignorant in the capacity that you suggest that anyone who doesn't agree with the sinless perfection doctrine rejects entire sanctification, which isn't the case.

We believe that the LORD Jesus Christ will finish the good work He has begun in us, and we will be entirely sanctified. We just don't believe in the exact same capacity that you do. Also, I don't know if it's just because I am sick today and perhaps more easily agitated than usual, but you're coming across to me as arrogant and with a religious spirit. Either way, we can agree to disagree with no problems there, but who are you to accuse me of not knowing scriptures/concepts and throwing me into a blanket statement group of people deceived by false teachers and hyper-grace just because I don't hold the same doctrine you do? I was in the sinless perfection camp like I said, I am no longer there. That doesn't mean I am ignorant of the scriptures or that I subscribe to hyper-grace, or that false teachers influenced my position/understanding.

I really don't know if it is a religious spirit or the Hoy Spirit, as a program on Christian TV encouraged me to pray in tongues for about an hour or more before I posted my recent posts that you define as having a religous spirit and arrogant.

Also it has been customary in some debates for those who oppose the doctrine of entire sanctification to label it as "sinless perfection" as a slam on the doctrine. Glad to hear that you still subscribe to the doctrine of entire sanctification.

And also, I have no way implied that we bring ourselves to the point of entire sanctification. Of course it is only the Lord who would be able to accomplisht this in us. Is that not a given? It seems to me that it would be just simply understood that anyone who believes they can be made perfectly holy would also beiieve that they cannot accomplish such a thing in their own strength. But I suppose it is good that there was confusion so that the issue can be clarified: only God can sanctify a person wholly: is it not clear in 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 that God is the sanctifier there?

keck553
May 11th 2017, 05:03 AM
What does it imply then?

This is what it implies:

"We believe entire sanctification is that act of God following our conversion experience by which Christians are freed from competing loyalties that hinder or obstruct uncontested love for God and one’s neighbor. Further, we believe the heart is cleansed from the principle of sin, which is undeniably selfishness. By the power of the Sanctifying Spirit, we are enabled and empowered to love God with the totality of our being, and our neighbor as ourselves."

Please, if you are going to use our doctrine, get it right.

mailmandan
May 11th 2017, 11:31 AM
mailmandan, you appear to be teaching by your understanding of 1 John 1:8 that everyone is currently sinning 100% of the time. Your understanding of "If we say that we have no sin (present tense), we decieve ourselves and the truth us not in us" implies that if I do not have the understanding that I am presently sinning, I am not holding to the truth of God. I NEVER said currently sinning 100% of the time. I said not currently sinless 100% of the time in a present and ongoing state. Big difference.


I'm pretty sure his point was that whichever fellowship you're a part of, there is someone who is imperfect and in some sort of sin either now or at some point in the future, which was brought up in response to your suggesting that Jesus is coming back for the spotless bride etc. In other words, to have you consider the fact that unless your fellowship is in sinless perfection, you might want to ask yourself the same question you posed with respect to Jesus coming back for that group.

I'm pretty sure his point was that the LORD Jesus Christ is the one who presents that group faultless before the Father, opposed to Jesus coming to that group and saying "Wow, you guys are sinless on your own, you're the group I came for" etc. I do realize that you aren't suggesting that you or your sinless perfection camp claim to be sinless of your own power, but by the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I think it's pretty important for you to consider the implications of what you're saying/claiming.

If you are correct, one sin at the wrong time right before Jesus gets that spotless group, and your whole eternity changes. I can't help but think on the publican and the tax collector.

The one who went home justified wasn't the one saying "Thank you Father, that I am not one of these hyper-grace people deceived by false teachers, that I am completely sinless and perfect". Nope, I would much rather have an attitude of "Father, have mercy on me, for I know the scriptures, I have overcome in certain areas by your grace and by the power of Your Holy Spirit, but I am in big trouble because I know that Jesus is the only sinless spotless perfect Lamb".

And for the record, I WAS in the sinless-perfection camp not a year and a half or 2 years ago. And I do despise hyper-grace, as well as false teachers. I am not defending this position as means to give myself and other brethren a license to sin. Just important to clarify that, because some of what you posted suggests that anyone who doesn't hold your doctrine is automatically hyper-grace advocacy deceived by false teachers, which just isn't the case. Amen! Good points! I'm glad to hear that you were able to escape from bondage to the sinless-perfection camp. :thumbsup:

CadyandZoe
May 11th 2017, 01:06 PM
mailmandan, you appear to be teaching by your understanding of 1 John 1:8 that everyone is currently sinning 100% of the time. Your understanding of "If we say that we have no sin (present tense), we decieve ourselves and the truth us not in us" implies that if I do not have the understanding that I am presently sinning, I am not holding to the truth of God.

In the following passage John sets up TWO contrasts, looking at the same idea from two different directions. The central issue is a comparison between what we say about ourselves and what is actually true about ourselves.

First contrast:

1John 1:
5 This 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. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but 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.

Here the formula seems to be something like "If we say . . .but if we walk . . .", in which we might say one thing about our inwardness, but our actual walk reveals a different inwardness.

1. If we say . . . "we have fellowship with him.
1.a. and yet walk . . . "in darkness, -- we lie, we do not have fellowship with him
1.b. but if we walk . . . "in the light -- we tell the truth, we do have fellowship with him.

We often use the term "fellowship" to indicate those times when Christians get together and share the comfort and benefits of friendship and the rewards of mutual encouragement. But John is not talking about this kind of fellowship here. Rather, this kind of fellowship takes place when two people walk together in agreement with each other, acting with the same values, motivations, and perspectives together. So then, if a man claims to be at one with God, and yet he walks in darkness, what he claims is not true. But if that man walks in the light, then that man is telling the truth about himself.

Bottom line: how a man walks is a more reliable indication of his relationship with the Father than what he says about himself.

Second Contrast:

1John 1:
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

In the contrast above, the focus was on what we tell others about ourselves. In this contrast, the focus is on what we tell ourselves about ourselves. Here John touches on the very real privation of the human heart, which is our ability to deceive ourselves. How can anyone truly deceive themselves. After all, deception takes place when a man withholds information he knows to be true from another man; but how can a man keep what he knows to be true from himself? He willfully and stubbornly refuses to face and accept it.

2. Sin as an aspect of inwardness as compared to sin as an act.

2.A. If we say . . . "we have no sin"
2.A.a We deceive ourselves
2.A.b the truth is not in us.

2.B. If we say . . . "we have not sinned"
2.B.a we make him a liar
2.B.b. his word is not in us.

If we say "we have no sin" we are making a statement about our essential nature. It's one thing for a man to admit that he makes mistakes now and then; or that he fails morally now and then. But it's another thing for a man to admit that sin is an essential aspect of his innermost being. John says that if a man is unwilling to admit to himself that sin resides at the core of his innermost being, then the truth is not in that man. Here John identifies a very dangerous move a man might make as he is tempted to think that sin no longer resides at the core of his being.

Sadly, some Christians are encouraged to make this move. If a man says something like "I am a new man, a new creature in Christ", then that man should watch out. He is being tempted to think that the Holy Spirit has removed sin from his innermost being, which is not true. If a man says to himself, "I am a new man in Christ, I no longer have sin within me", then he is deceiving himself. John says that if a man wants to obey the truth, he must continue to admit that he has sin within him residing at the core of his being. It never goes away and it is always there.

The privation of our innermost being does not keep a man from making a confession, or keep him from repentance. And it doesn't restrict our behavior such that we are unable to walk uprightly and with integrity. But we should never accept the lie that we no longer have sin at the core of our innermost being. That privation will be healed in the coming age at the return of Jesus.

justbyfaith
May 11th 2017, 06:05 PM
This is what it implies:

"We believe entire sanctification is that act of God following our conversion experience by which Christians are freed from competing loyalties that hinder or obstruct uncontested love for God and one’s neighbor. Further, we believe the heart is cleansed from the principle of sin, which is undeniably selfishness. By the power of the Sanctifying Spirit, we are enabled and empowered to love God with the totality of our being, and our neighbor as ourselves."

Please, if you are going to use our doctrine, get it right.

Based on that statement of faith, consider that love is the fulfilling of the law and that sin is the trangression of the law.

Also, if one's heart is cleansed from the principle of sin, how is the principle of sin going to operate within him so that he sins in the practical sense of the word?

justbyfaith
May 11th 2017, 06:22 PM
In the following passage John sets up TWO contrasts, looking at the same idea from two different directions. The central issue is a comparison between what we say about ourselves and what is actually true about ourselves.

First contrast:

1John 1:
5 This 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. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but 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.

Here the formula seems to be something like "If we say . . .but if we walk . . .", in which we might say one thing about our inwardness, but our actual walk reveals a different inwardness.

1. If we say . . . "we have fellowship with him.
1.a. and yet walk . . . "in darkness, -- we lie, we do not have fellowship with him
1.b. but if we walk . . . "in the light -- we tell the truth, we do have fellowship with him.

We often use the term "fellowship" to indicate those times when Christians get together and share the comfort and benefits of friendship and the rewards of mutual encouragement. But John is not talking about this kind of fellowship here. Rather, this kind of fellowship takes place when two people walk together in agreement with each other, acting with the same values, motivations, and perspectives together. So then, if a man claims to be at one with God, and yet he walks in darkness, what he claims is not true. But if that man walks in the light, then that man is telling the truth about himself.

Bottom line: how a man walks is a more reliable indication of his relationship with the Father than what he says about himself.

Second Contrast:

1John 1:
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

In the contrast above, the focus was on what we tell others about ourselves. In this contrast, the focus is on what we tell ourselves about ourselves. Here John touches on the very real privation of the human heart, which is our ability to deceive ourselves. How can anyone truly deceive themselves. After all, deception takes place when a man withholds information he knows to be true from another man; but how can a man keep what he knows to be true from himself? He willfully and stubbornly refuses to face and accept it.

2. Sin as an aspect of inwardness as compared to sin as an act.

2.A. If we say . . . "we have no sin"
2.A.a We deceive ourselves
2.A.b the truth is not in us.

2.B. If we say . . . "we have not sinned"
2.B.a we make him a liar
2.B.b. his word is not in us.

If we say "we have no sin" we are making a statement about our essential nature. It's one thing for a man to admit that he makes mistakes now and then; or that he fails morally now and then. But it's another thing for a man to admit that sin is an essential aspect of his innermost being. John says that if a man is unwilling to admit to himself that sin resides at the core of his innermost being, then the truth is not in that man. Here John identifies a very dangerous move a man might make as he is tempted to think that sin no longer resides at the core of his being.

Sadly, some Christians are encouraged to make this move. If a man says something like "I am a new man, a new creature in Christ", then that man should watch out. He is being tempted to think that the Holy Spirit has removed sin from his innermost being, which is not true. If a man says to himself, "I am a new man in Christ, I no longer have sin within me", then he is deceiving himself. John says that if a man wants to obey the truth, he must continue to admit that he has sin within him residing at the core of his being. It never goes away and it is always there.

The privation of our innermost being does not keep a man from making a confession, or keep him from repentance. And it doesn't restrict our behavior such that we are unable to walk uprightly and with integrity. But we should never accept the lie that we no longer have sin at the core of our innermost being. That privation will be healed in the coming age at the return of Jesus.

And yet, the Bible says: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 Corinthans 5:17.

So now if we accept a principle of scripture, we are in danger of deceiving ourselves. You can't make this stuff up!

I assume that the old thngs in that scripture are sinful things; therefore I would think that all the new things that are new in me as a newcreature in Christ have nothing to do with sin. Would God make all new things within us sinful? Is not God's purpose in the Cross to bring us to repentance so that we "Go and sin no more"?

I just want to say that according to 1 John 5:20 all true believers in Christ are in the Father and the Son. Now God is light, and in him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). And also there is no sin in Christ (1 John 3:5). Since believers are in Christ and the Father, if there be sin or darkness in them, that places sin or darkness in Christ and the Father.

Therefore I conclude that 1 John 1:8 is clarified more perfectly by 1 John 1:10. If I say that I have no record of sin, I am deceiving myself and the truth is not in me. iow, 1 John 1:10 and 1 John 1:8 both say exactly the same thing: If I say that I have not sinned then I am self-deceived.

keck553
May 11th 2017, 06:46 PM
Based on that statement of faith, consider that love is the fulfilling of the law and that sin is the trangression of the law.

Also, if one's heart is cleansed from the principle of sin, how is the principle of sin going to operate within him so that he sins in the practical sense of the word?

No, that is not correct. First of all Nazarene's (I am a Nazarene) believe entire sanctification is a process, not a magic wand that is waved over us at baptism and suddenly we follow the Spirit in perfect obedience. Secondly entire sanctification has no reference to obeying the Torah of Moses given to Israel.

As to sin, that depends on where we are in relationship to Him. I will provide an example. If we fear Muslims, we will not even hear the Spirit's direction to witness to a Muslim. The issue of disobedience in this case is fear, not disobeying His direction because our fear blocks His voice and He can not work through us to call them home. But the spirit of fear is not a principal found in the Spirit of the Law. If we trust God and do not fear, then we will Hear His voice, because 1) we are not focused on ourselves due to fear and 2) because we are not focused on our Law-Keeping. We are focused on Him. A work's based Christian would ask "What would Jesus do?" and act on their own in an attempt to "be like Jesus." A Spirit led Christian will ask "what will He do through me?" and act on the Spirit's direction because this Christian will actually hear the Spirit when He is their focus, not themselves.

A Biblical example would be the Letter of the Law abiding Jews who ignored the injured man, even though they were coming BACK from Jerusalem. They kept the Law but were condemned for not keeping the spirit of the Law. The Samaritan who didn't keep the Law Kept the Spirit of the Law by redeeming the man back to health, to the point of paying for his keep until he was healed.

So hearing His Voice and disobeying - that is sin because His Voice always will direct us to love others. That is how we walk in the Spirit. It's not about keeping a list of Mitzvot and feeling all righteous and fuzzy, it's about getting our hands dirty by loving others. It's about touching the unclean so they can be healed and hear God and come home. It's not about lecturing the lost in a failed attempt to convict them even more than the Spirit already has. It's about taking the hand of a lost soul and bringing them to the throne of grace and redemption.

If we can't do that, then we will never fulfill the Law. That is the doctrine of Nazarene total sanctification.

CadyandZoe
May 11th 2017, 06:54 PM
And yet, the Bible says: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.Yes, however, what does Paul mean? What does it mean to be "new"? Is Paul talking about morality in that context? Is he talking about the ability to live a moral life without sin? No. Not at all.

2Corinthians 5:
16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Here Paul indicates a contrast between how we formerly recognized each other, and how we recognize each other now. Formerly, he says, we used to recognize each other according to the flesh, and we even recognized Jesus according to the flesh. But now we don't. What does he mean by "according to the flesh?"

This phrase, "according to the flesh" indicates the typical ways we categorize and recognize each other. For instance, we classify ourselves according to sex: male and female; we classify each other according to family line: Jew and Gentile; and we classify each other by our economic status: slave or free. An employment application will ask for our name, address, phone number, occupation and things such as these. In all these ways we recognize each other according to the flesh.

Paul uses this phrase in the book of Romans to talk about Jesus. In the opening paragraph, he says we recognize Jesus two ways: according to the flesh, and according to the spirit of righteousness.

Romans 1:
1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, . . .

Family pedigree is one way to recognize someone according to the flesh. We recognize Jesus according to the flesh when we acknowledge the fact that he was born a descendant of David. Paul is saying that while we formally recognized each other and Jesus according to the flesh, we no longer recognize each other that way. Now we recognize each other according to our relationship to Jesus Christ, who died for our reconciliation with God.

This, then is how we are a "new creature"; we are a new creature in that we have an entirely unique way to recognize each other, i.e. are you "in Christ" or not? It doesn't mean we have changed physically or that we are now capable of living a sinless life, or that we have the ability to never sin again. It simply means that we have a new way to categorize ourselves. In Romans 8, Paul will clarify this in terms of our shared indwelling of the Holy Spirit, i.e. "according to the spirit."



So now if we accept a principle of scripture, we are in danger of deceiving ourselves. You can't make this stuff up!

I just want to say that according to 1 John 5:20 all true believers in Christ are in the Father and the Son. Now God is light, and in him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). And also there is no sin in Christ (1 John 3:5). Since believers are in Christ and the Father, if there be sin or darkness in them, that places sin or darkness in Christ and the Father.

Therefore I conclude that 1 John 1:8 is clarified more perfectly by 1 John 1:10. If I say that I have no record of sin, I am deceiving myself and the truth is not in me. iow, 1 John 1:10 and 1 John 1:8 both say exactly the same thing: If I say that I have not sinned then I am self-deceived.What clue from the text leads you to add the clarification "record of sin?"

keck553
May 11th 2017, 06:54 PM
And yet, the Bible says: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 Corinthans 5:17.

So now if we accept a principle of scripture, we are in danger of deceiving ourselves. You can't make this stuff up!

I assume that the old thngs in that scripture are sinful things; therefore I would think that all the new things that are new in me as a newcreature in Christ have nothing to do with sin. Would God make all new things within us sinful? Is not God's purpose in the Cross to bring us to repentance so that we "Go and sin no more"?

I just want to say that according to 1 John 5:20 all true believers in Christ are in the Father and the Son. Now God is light, and in him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5). And also there is no sin in Christ (1 John 3:5). Since believers are in Christ and the Father, if there be sin or darkness in them, that places sin or darkness in Christ and the Father.

Therefore I conclude that 1 John 1:8 is clarified more perfectly by 1 John 1:10. If I say that I have no record of sin, I am deceiving myself and the truth is not in me. iow, 1 John 1:10 and 1 John 1:8 both say exactly the same thing: If I say that I have not sinned then I am self-deceived.


You might want to check Romans 7:17 - 20 for context.

justbyfaith
May 11th 2017, 07:15 PM
You might want to check Romans 7:17 - 20 for context.

Romans 7:17-20 is NOT the context of 2 Corinthians 5:17; it is in an entriely different book. But if you want to look at context, look at the context of Romans 7:17-20, which might be Romans 8:1-14 and Romans 6:1-23.

justbyfaith
May 11th 2017, 07:19 PM
CafyandZoe,

just letting you know that I edited post #201 to add a little more of my argument, which I think answers ahead of time (so to speak) your argument in answer to what I posted that did not include what I added.

justbyfaith
May 11th 2017, 07:25 PM
All of Romans 7:14-25 (i.e. verses 17-20) is speaking of the person who is still in the flesh, per verse 23 in comparison to Romans 7:5. Romans 7:14-25 is therefore speaking of the unregenerated person, per Romans 8:9.

See also Romans 6:6 and Colossians 2:11 for my view on how the body of fleshly sins is destroyed and put away when we move from Romans 7 to Romans 8. Therefore that "no good thing" in my flesh is referring to the Romans 7 Christian.

Now it may even be that as a Christian, in your flesh dwells "no good thing." Nevertheless this does not mean that the flesh can not be mortified so that that aspect of your person has no say in your behaviour or words.

Brother Mark
May 11th 2017, 07:33 PM
Therefore I conclude that 1 John 1:8 is clarified more perfectly by 1 John 1:10. If I say that I have no record of sin, I am deceiving myself and the truth is not in me. iow, 1 John 1:10 and 1 John 1:8 both say exactly the same thing: If I say that I have not sinned then I am self-deceived.

Why do you think the Holy Spirit chose to leave off the words "record of" from the passage? He did so for a reason...

CadyandZoe
May 11th 2017, 07:52 PM
All of Romans 7:14-25 (i.e. verses 17-20) is speaking of the person who is still in the flesh, per verse 23 in comparison to Romans 7:5. Romans 7:14-25 is therefore speaking of the unregenerated person, per Romans 8:9.On the contrary, Romans 7:14-25 is being spoken by a regenerated person, a person walking in the Spirit. Only a person walking according to the spirit can say what Paul said about himself.


See also Romans 6:6 and Colossians 2:11 for my view on how the body of fleshly sins is destroyed and put away when we move from Romans 7 to Romans 8. Therefore that "no good thing" in my flesh is referring to the Romans 7 Christian.Our body of flesh is not put away until the day of our glorification. This is why Paul calls it a hope. "For why does one hope for what one sees?"

justbyfaith
May 11th 2017, 09:50 PM
I NEVER said currently sinning 100% of the time. I said not currently sinless 100% of the time in a present and ongoing state. Big difference.

You said that 1 John 1:8 is speaking of present tense sinning. In the past I believe that someone has argued that 1 John 1:8 is talking about the sinning in pracitce and not the principle of indweling sin. If that be the case, and according to 1 John 1:8, If we say that we have no sin (PRESENT TENSE) we deceive iuorelves and the truth is not in us, then it follows that we are all sinning pracitcally in the PRESENT TENSE. That means that one second, five minutes, and an hour from now I will still be sinning in the present tense, according to your doctrine.



Amen! Good points! I'm glad to hear that you were able to escape from bondage to the sinless-perfection camp. :thumbsup:

justbyfaith
May 11th 2017, 09:54 PM
On the contrary, Romans 7:14-25 is being spoken by a regenerated person, a person walking in the Spirit. Only a person walking according to the spirit can say what Paul said about himself.

On the contrary, Paul is using a literary tacitc to tell us the predicament of the one who is "carnal, sold under sin" as opposed to the one who is spiritual and redeemed from sin.


Our body of flesh is not put away until the day of our glorification. This is why Paul calls it a hope. "For why does one hope for what one sees?"

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself even as He is pure.

justbyfaith
May 11th 2017, 10:00 PM
Why do you think the Holy Spirit chose to leave off the words "record of" from the passage? He did so for a reason...

Point taken. Nevertheless I would still say that the element of sin within the sanctified believer is rendered dead so that it has no power over our words or over our behaviour. And of course there is still the rest of scripture to deal with. Are we in the Father and the Son? We are. 1 John 5:20. And if sin be in us, how is sin and darkness not in the Father and the Son? Yet sin and darkness are not found in either one of them. How do you explain this?

Note also that in Ephesians 5:30-32 we are of His flesh and of His bones.

keck553
May 11th 2017, 11:36 PM
Point taken. Nevertheless I would still say that the element of sin within the sanctified believer is rendered dead so that it has no power over our words or over our behaviour. And of course there is still the rest of scripture to deal with. Are we in the Father and the Son? We are. 1 John 5:20. And if sin be in us, how is sin and darkness not in the Father and the Son? Yet sin and darkness are not found in either one of them. How do you explain this?

Note also that in Ephesians 5:30-32 we are of His flesh and of His bones.

So when you fall short of loving your neighbor, have you sinned? Or do you love your neighbors perfectly?

CadyandZoe
May 12th 2017, 01:14 PM
On the contrary, Paul is using a literary tacitc to tell us the predicament of the one who is "carnal, sold under sin" as opposed to the one who is spiritual and redeemed from sin.I disagree for the following reasons. First, this interpretation does not account for the rhetorical questions Paul asks, which are raised as objections to his gospel. Second, his interpretation fails to consider the profundity and depth of sin. Finally, this interpretation does not understand the true nature of sanctification, which is not an outward transformation of moral behavior, but an inward awakening and awareness of the truth, especially the truth about oneself. Sanctification is the softening of the heart and the opening of the eyes, which is what Paul demonstrates in Romans 7.

Romans 7:
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, ďYou shall not covet.Ē 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.

To begin, the correct interpretation of this passage must take into account the question Paul asked. A Jewish person might raise an objection to Paul's gospel in that his gospel seems to imply that the Law is evil, or at least flawed in some way. So Paul is answering THAT objection. He has NOT set out to teach us about the difference between being a "carnal Christian" and a "spiritual Christian." That is not his focus here; his focus here is to defend his gospel against those who might object to his gospel on the grounds that the Law is useless, flawed or in some way "sin."

His position is that the Law is not sin, because it served to raise his awareness of the depth and profundity of his sin. If it were not for the fact that the Law commanded against coveting, he would not have known about coveting. Of course he "knew" about coveting; we all know about coveting, but what he means to say is that he didn't realize the depth of his sin until he attempted to stop coveting. The commandment says, "Not only do I want you to stop taking your neighbor's stuff, I want you to never desire your neighbor's stuff. " Never lust again; never covet again.

Not only does the Tenth Commandment ask Paul to change his behavior; it asks Paul to change himself on the inside. Lust is so much a part of his existence as a creature that it is impossible to change it. No human being can recreate themselves such that they no longer have an essential, inner aspect. This commandment against coveting opened Paul up to expose his insides, his inward self, to reveal a man incapable of obeying the Tenth commandment. Changing ourselves that deeply is beyond our capability.

Skipping ahead.

Romans 7:
21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Once more we find Paul's reference to his enlightenment, which is a clear sign that Paul is gaining in wisdom. Wisdom, understanding, and awareness are clear signs that the Spirit of God is sanctifying an individual. Even while he finds evil in himself, this awareness of his true nature is his sanctification. He describes himself as a "wretched man" a prisoner of a body of death, whereby he remains constantly at war with the members of his body. With his mind he serves the law of God but his sin runs much deeper and is more profoundly a part of himself.

He asks, who will free me from this body of death? He answers that Jesus Christ will free him. But in the next chapter, he asserts that becoming free of sin at this level is a future hope, not a current reality.

Romans 8:
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

Paul considers the sufferings of this present time and it would be prudent to understand what he means by "sufferings" in this context. It's possible that he refers to all kinds of suffering he might experience. But in this context, I think, he refers back to his fight against coveting, his war between his mind and his members. While he longs to be set free from his body of death, in the mean time, he constantly battles against his lust, not allowing his lust to manifest in his behavior. Not only does his body suffer corruption, but his inner man suffers corruption and he longs to be set free from it. In chapter 7 he called out to be set free from his body of death; but here in chapter 8, he waits eagerly for the redemption of his body. Being set free from the depth and profundity of his sin remains a hope for the future. And he testifies that he has not yet been set free of sin "for we hope for what we do not see."


Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.Quite right. In that context, the thing not seen is justification. How do we know that God has justified us? Our faith. Our faith is our evidence that he has justified us. Faith, however, is not evidence of our glorification.


Everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself even as He is pure.Agreed. This is why Paul calls it suffering. In order to purify ourselves, we deny ourselves the impure pleasures we crave. It takes work; it takes effort. Paul, in Hebrews, describes it as a time when we are NOT at rest. Self control is not natural; it takes discipline and effort and struggle against our innate nature. But our hope to be set free of it is our motivation to be pure.

justbyfaith
May 12th 2017, 04:10 PM
I disagree for the following reasons. First, this interpretation does not account for the rhetorical questions Paul asks, which are raised as objections to his gospel. Second, his interpretation fails to consider the profundity and depth of sin. Finally, this interpretation does not understand the true nature of sanctification, which is not an outward transformation of moral behavior, but an inward awakening and awareness of the truth, especially the truth about oneself. Sanctification is the softening of the heart and the opening of the eyes, which is what Paul demonstrates in Romans 7.

Romans 7:
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.

To begin, the correct interpretation of this passage must take into account the question Paul asked. A Jewish person might raise an objection to Paul's gospel in that his gospel seems to imply that the Law is evil, or at least flawed in some way. So Paul is answering THAT objection. He has NOT set out to teach us about the difference between being a "carnal Christian" and a "spiritual Christian." That is not his focus here; his focus here is to defend his gospel against those who might object to his gospel on the grounds that the Law is useless, flawed or in some way "sin."

His position is that the Law is not sin, because it served to raise his awareness of the depth and profundity of his sin. If it were not for the fact that the Law commanded against coveting, he would not have known about coveting. Of course he "knew" about coveting; we all know about coveting, but what he means to say is that he didn't realize the depth of his sin until he attempted to stop coveting. The commandment says, "Not only do I want you to stop taking your neighbor's stuff, I want you to never desire your neighbor's stuff. " Never lust again; never covet again.

Not only does the Tenth Commandment ask Paul to change his behavior; it asks Paul to change himself on the inside. Lust is so much a part of his existence as a creature that it is impossible to change it. No human being can recreate themselves such that they no longer have an essential, inner aspect. This commandment against coveting opened Paul up to expose his insides, his inward self, to reveal a man incapable of obeying the Tenth commandment. Changing ourselves that deeply is beyond our capability.

Skipping ahead.

Romans 7:
21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Once more we find Paul's reference to his enlightenment, which is a clear sign that Paul is gaining in wisdom. Wisdom, understanding, and awareness are clear signs that the Spirit of God is sanctifying an individual. Even while he finds evil in himself, this awareness of his true nature is his sanctification. He describes himself as a "wretched man" a prisoner of a body of death, whereby he remains constantly at war with the members of his body. With his mind he serves the law of God but his sin runs much deeper and is more profoundly a part of himself.

He asks, who will free me from this body of death? He answers that Jesus Christ will free him. But in the next chapter, he asserts that becoming free of sin at this level is a future hope, not a current reality.

Romans 8:
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

Paul considers the sufferings of this present time and it would be prudent to understand what he means by "sufferings" in this context. It's possible that he refers to all kinds of suffering he might experience. But in this context, I think, he refers back to his fight against coveting, his war between his mind and his members. While he longs to be set free from his body of death, in the mean time, he constantly battles against his lust, not allowing his lust to manifest in his behavior. Not only does his body suffer corruption, but his inner man suffers corruption and he longs to be set free from it. In chapter 7 he called out to be set free from his body of death; but here in chapter 8, he waits eagerly for the redemption of his body. Being set free from the depth and profundity of his sin remains a hope for the future. And he testifies that he has not yet been set free of sin "for we hope for what we do not see."

Quite right. In that context, the thing not seen is justification. How do we know that God has justified us? Our faith. Our faith is our evidence that he has justified us. Faith, however, is not evidence of our glorification.

Agreed. This is why Paul calls it suffering. In order to purify ourselves, we deny ourselves the impure pleasures we crave. It takes work; it takes effort. Paul, in Hebrews, describes it as a time when we are NOT at rest. Self control is not natural; it takes discipline and effort and struggle against our innate nature. But our hope to be set free of it is our motivation to be pure.

It doesn't take work and effort; all it takes is faith and hope: according to the promise there in 1 John 3:2-3, it is not work or effort that purifies us but a hope in the return of Christ.

Yes we cannot keep from coveting in our old nature; but when a man is born again he is changed from the inside out; not by his own doing but the Lord's. When I am abiding in the Lord I find that I do not even covet but am free from every sin. (as it is written, And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

Hebrews 11:1 can indeed be applied to sanctification (even the redemption of the body) and not justification only; and is to be compared to Romans 8:23-25.

Therefore I disagree with you and maintain that Paul was using a literary tactic. Paul himself was not "carnal, sold under sin", he was writing in letter form the inspired word of God! Would a carnal person (a slave of sin) be capable of bringing forth the word of the Lord?

justbyfaith
May 12th 2017, 04:12 PM
So when you fall short of loving your neighbor, have you sinned? Or do you love your neighbors perfectly?

Only when I am abiding in the Lord. 1 John 2:6. (in answer to the second question).

In answer to the first: of course it is a sin to fall short of loving my neighbor. I maintain that I will not fall short of this as long as I abide in Christ. Romans 5:5.

keck553
May 12th 2017, 06:03 PM
Only when I am abiding in the Lord. 1 John 2:6. (in answer to the second question).

In answer to the first: of course it is a sin to fall short of loving my neighbor. I maintain that I will not fall short of this as long as I abide in Christ. Romans 5:5.

So it is written thus:

"By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Do you think the mod asking you in another thread to tone down was due to your abidance in Christ? Honestly?

CadyandZoe
May 12th 2017, 07:52 PM
It doesn't take work and effort; all it takes is faith and hope: according to the promise there in 1 John 3:2-3, it is not work or effort that purifies us but a hope in the return of Christ.

Yes we cannot keep from coveting in our old nature; but when a man is born again he is changed from the inside out; not by his own doing but the Lord's. When I am abiding in the Lord I find that I do not even covet but am free from every sin. (as it is written, And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

Hebrews 11:1 can indeed be applied to sanctification (even the redemption of the body) and not justification only; and is to be compared to Romans 8:23-25.

Therefore I disagree with you and maintain that Paul was using a literary tactic. Paul himself was not "carnal, sold under sin", he was writing in letter form the inspied word of God! Would a carnal person (a slave of sin) be capable of bringing forth the word of the Lord?

Okay. Good luck with that.

justbyfaith
May 13th 2017, 12:43 AM
So it is written thus:

"By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Do you think the mod asking you in another thread to tone down was due to your abidance in Christ? Honestly?

Did I say that I abide in Christ 24/7? I believe that we can abide in Christ 24/7, but I don't think that I have claimed anywhere that I do this myself. I feel I'm getting to the place where I abide in Him more frequently. I do believe that a man can come to the place where he never ceases to abide. Am I there yet? I will only say that I feel I am getting closer. Also, it is not for you or the moderators to judge whether or not I am behaving like one who abides; but Christ is the judge. I am aware of nothing by myself, but I am not hereby justified, but He who judges me is the Lord. Also the thing that I was admonished for was that I asked someone if they were a Christian, which may be against the rules of the board, but I don't think there is anything in the Bible forbidding such a thing.


Originally Posted by CadyandZoe:

Okay. Good luck with that.

It is not luck that is required, but faith.

Noeb
May 13th 2017, 03:39 AM
Paul himself was not "carnal, sold under sin", he was writing in letter form the inspired word of God! Would a carnal person (a slave of sin) be capable of bringing forth the word of the Lord?1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Paul was regenerated writing Romans 7, talking about being regenerated and not knowing how overcome sin by believing the gospel. Talking about behavior not position. Not his present behavior though.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

justbyfaith
May 13th 2017, 03:52 AM
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Paul was regenerated writing Romans 7, talking about being regenerated and not knowing how overcome sin by believing the gospel. Talking about behavior not position. Not his present behavior though.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Being carnal, sold under sin (Romans 7:14-25) and being spiritual, redeemed from sin (Titus 2:14) are two things that are diametrically opposed.

I think that I would say that according to 1 Corinthians 3:1-2, it is possible that a born again Christian could be carnal; yet I would say that if he remains in that state and never graduates to becoming spiritual (entire sanctification) he never was a true Christian in the first place; even if entire sanctification does not happen for him until he experiences the final throes of the process of dying, as God deals with him in his final moments (although I would consider it presumption and folly to wait until then).

justbyfaith
May 13th 2017, 04:02 AM
*******************************************edited post #219.

Noeb
May 13th 2017, 04:12 AM
Being regenerated doesn't mean we weren't sold by Adam's sin. Walking in the Spirit, by faith in heavenly places in Christ with all spiritual blessings, isn't automatic. We have to believe the old man (husband) died to bring forth fruit unto God. Believe we are dead to the law of sin and death. If we do not we live as a Romans 7 'believer' and as Paul said about the Corinthians we are carnal, even though we are "redeemed from sin (Titus 2:14)".

justbyfaith
May 13th 2017, 04:17 AM
Yet in 1 Corinthians 3:1-2 the only option for a Christian is not carnality: he can also opt to be spiritual (if he obeys such verses as Luke 13:3,5).

Noeb
May 13th 2017, 04:33 AM
You're all over the map. We're in Romans 7 and the Romans 7 believer didn't need to change their mind. They delighted in the law and wanted to not sin, they just didn't know how to perform it. They needed to renew their mind to God's way -12:2.

justbyfaith
May 14th 2017, 03:40 PM
You're all over the map. We're in Romans 7 and the Romans 7 believer didn't need to change their mind. They delighted in the law and wanted to not sin, they just didn't know how to perform it. They needed to renew their mind to God's way -12:2.

No, the subject is carnality versus spirituality, and it is not only Romans 7 that speaks on this subject. 1 Corintihans 3:1-2 also speaks clearly on the subject. Context in the Bible does not only have to do with immediacy of location in the scriptures but with topical relevance.

Also to "repent" does not only mean to change your mind but to turn completely away from sin.

Noeb
May 14th 2017, 03:50 PM
No, the subject is carnality versus spirituality, and it is not only Romans 7 that speaks on this subject. 1 Corintihans 3:1-2 also speaks clearly on the subject. Context in the Bible does not only have to do with immediacy of location in the scriptures but with topical relevance.Paul said believers were behaving carnal, and that's what he's talking about in Romans 7. We don't have to walk our position. Perhaps that's the disconnect here. Seem you think a "true" believer "cannot" sin. You are wrong. Paul told believers to walk in Christ/in the Spirit, meaning they could do otherwise, or were doing otherwise.



Also to "repent" does not only mean to change your mind but to turn completely away from sin.Wrong again. It literally and actually means change mind. The result of changing the mind is a change in behavior. That's "walk". We do not have to walk in Christ/in the Spirit. We don't have to walk our position. Perhaps that's the disconnect here. Seem you think a "true" believer "cannot" sin. You are wrong. Paul told believers to walk in Christ/in the Spirit, meaning they could do otherwise, or were doing otherwise.

CadyandZoe
May 14th 2017, 08:39 PM
Paul said believers were behaving carnal, and that's what he's talking about in Romans 7. We don't have to walk our position. Perhaps that's the disconnect here. Seem you think a "true" believer "cannot" sin. You are wrong. Paul told believers to walk in Christ/in the Spirit, meaning they could do otherwise, or were doing otherwise.


Wrong again. It literally and actually means change mind. The result of changing the mind is a change in behavior. That's "walk". We do not have to walk in Christ/in the Spirit. We don't have to walk our position. Perhaps that's the disconnect here. Seem you think a "true" believer "cannot" sin. You are wrong. Paul told believers to walk in Christ/in the Spirit, meaning they could do otherwise, or were doing otherwise.

Romans 7 isn't about our walk or our behavior. The focus of Romans 7 is the inner struggle with sin, not our outward behavior. Elsewhere Paul reports that he was blameless before the law, that is, his walk corresponded to what the law required with the exception of coveting, which is inwardly experienced and not a behavior.

Noeb
May 14th 2017, 09:10 PM
That's ridiculous. In the 7 verses following the one in question there's 10 do's. The unnecessary struggle resulted in sinful behavior. Cannot be ignored.

CadyandZoe
May 14th 2017, 09:31 PM
That's ridiculous. In the 7 verses following the one in question there's 10 do's. The unnecessary struggle resulted in sinful behavior. Cannot be ignored.

Look again, I think you are reading behavior into the text. Notice all the references to Paul's inwardness: his mind, his will, his thinking, his discovery, his lust, his knowledge, his confession, his agreement and etc. His focus is on what takes place inwardly. He is not focused on how his sin manifests itself outwardly, e.g. theft, adultery, impatience, lying, murder etc. He is focused on how his sin manifests itself inwardly, e.g. his lusts, and passions, and motivations, etc.

17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

The sin, he says, is "in me. The sin is "in my members." He asserts that "evil is present in me." Paul is talking about an internal struggle with sin, not an outward manifestation of sin. He is not talking about behaviors; he is talking about motives: greed, desire, avarice, cupidity, rapacity and all the base motivations we all experience. Paul is trying to tell us that even though we don't act on such motives, the presence of such motives belie the presence of sin within us.

Most people who believe the doctrine of sinless perfection completely ignore this aspect of our sin and would not agree with Paul that desires in-and-of themselves reveal the presence of sin within. They simply say something like, "well, that's just being human." And my answer is, "yea, that's right." But that's the problem that needs to be fixed at the coming of Jesus.

Noeb
May 14th 2017, 11:42 PM
Look again, I think you are reading behavior into the text.:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:



Notice all the references to Paul's inwardness:Who said inwardness is not there? I just said it is.



Most people who believe the doctrine of sinless perfection completely ignore this aspect of our sin and would not agree with Paul that desires in-and-of themselves reveal the presence of sin within. They simply say something like, "well, that's just being human." And my answer is, "yea, that's right." But that's the problem that needs to be fixed at the coming of Jesus.The problem was fixed at the Cross. You don't need to wait. Believers are free indeed.

justbyfaith
May 15th 2017, 07:05 PM
Inward sinfulness, as defined by the commandment, "Thou shat not covet," is definitely somethng that I do not discount as being present in my experience at certain times in my life. But there are also times when it (the sin of covetousness and other inward iniquity) is faithfully absent. I consider those times to be my abiding moments.

justbyfaith
May 15th 2017, 09:37 PM
Paul said believers were behaving carnal, and that's what he's talking about in Romans 7. We don't have to walk our position. Perhaps that's the disconnect here. Seem you think a "true" believer "cannot" sin. You are wrong. Paul told believers to walk in Christ/in the Spirit, meaning they could do otherwise, or were doing otherwise.


Wrong again. It literally and actually means change mind. The result of changing the mind is a change in behavior. That's "walk". We do not have to walk in Christ/in the Spirit. We don't have to walk our position. Perhaps that's the disconnect here. Seem you think a "true" believer "cannot" sin. You are wrong. Paul told believers to walk in Christ/in the Spirit, meaning they could do otherwise, or were doing otherwise.

Lord, Noeb doesn't understand the meaning of the word repent. Will you show him in your timing that just changing his mind won't cut it? Please reveal to him that to repent means a 180-degree turn as concerning the direction of one's life....that it means to turn away from sin completely. I hope he'll make it Lord! But if he doesn't or hasn't really repented because he has the wrong definition of that word, will He? I suppose only You know.

Noeb
May 16th 2017, 12:40 AM
So.....
Stop sinning and be baptized and you will receive the Spirit?
Stop sinning and be converted so that your sins can be blotted out?
God granted the Gentiles stop sinning unto life?

Your belief in sinless perfection seems at play. You err greatly!

keck553
May 16th 2017, 01:14 AM
The Hebrew word for "repent" is "Teshuvah." The root "shuv" literally means "turn back," and is found over 1000 times (shuv) in the Hebrew Scriptures. It occurs in a few contexts. For example the first usage is in Genesis 3:19 when God tells Adam he will "return to the earth (as dust)."

In spiritual matters, "shuv" is used in the context of practical turning away from evil and toward good - although in Jewish thought turning toward God is the means by which evil is turned away from.

The word where the emotional expression of sorrow or regret is manifested is "nacham," often confused with "repent". "Nacham," however is not repentance. The Hebrew pictograph represents "nacham" as someone "taking a deep breath," or "sighing" as the form of expressing "nacham." In context when this word is applied to God (e.g. Genesis 6:6), regret is expressed as God's response to the sinful choices of human beings.

When applied to us, "nacham" is qualified in Scripture by context. Regret over sin is exclusive to human beings. For example when Job "abhors himself and repents in dust and ashes," implication is that Job is changing his thinking (the LXX reinforces this context as it translates the word as "Metonia" (ἡγέομαι) which literally means "with thinking." It implies that how we think affects our judgments and decisions.

Therefore repentance is a cognitive process that we acknowledge we are mistaken, and that a change of mind (thinking) will lead to a change of heart.

The New Testament writings follow the LXX path by also using "metanao" to express the Biblical Hebrew concept of "nacham," and the word "strepho" to express the Biblical Hebrew context of "shuv." In the Greek culture of the time, ""metanao" was the idea of expressing regret and remorse over a moral failure. "Strepho" in Greek does literally mean "to turn," so in this sense, Noeb is correct to the literal interpretation of the Greek word "strepho." However, in Biblical context, the LXX exclusively uses this word to translate "shuv," which is clearly in context of turning from evil and toward God.

So, in context "nacham/metanao" concerns past actions (of regret/sorrow) and "shuv/strepho" concern the present.

The disconnect (using the literal translation of "Strepho") occurs when "strepho" in the New Testament is not associated with "shuv" from the Old Testament. The translators of the LXX made the association, so in their mind, the translation carried the meaning of "shuv" to the Septuagint.

The reason the Greek word "strepho" isolated from the LXX does not contain the idea of turning to God is that redemption in Greek culture was based on appeasement, payoffs and shame, while the Hebrew culture sees redemption as forgiveness, drawing near and the process of disconnecting this sin from the sinner through "shuv."

Noeb
May 16th 2017, 02:49 AM
Change of mind is required regardless of which word though.

justbyfaith
May 16th 2017, 03:23 AM
So to repent does not mean to turn away from sin?

Just going by the English meaning of the word I believe it means to turn wholeheartedly away from sin. I believe that the Holy Spirit has taught me that this is the true meaning of the word repent, irregardless of the technical meaning of words in Hebrew and Greek. As I am certain that even in the original languages, at the very least the connotation of repent implies a complete turning away (from sin to the Lord and His righteousness).

CadyandZoe
May 16th 2017, 11:29 AM
So to repent does not mean to turn away from sin?

Just going by the English meaning of the word I believe it means to turn wholeheartedly away from sin. I believe that the Holy Spirit has taught me that this is the true meaning of the word repent, irregardless of the technical meaning of words in Hebrew and Greek. As I am certain that even in the original languages, at the very least the connotation of repent implies a complete turning away (from sin to the Lord and His righteousness).

You are correct. Although the meaning of the word repentance involves a change of mind; bearing the fruits of repentance is when repentance is affirmed.

Noeb
May 16th 2017, 01:21 PM
So to repent does not mean to turn away from sin?

Just going by the English meaning of the word I believe it means to turn wholeheartedly away from sin. I believe that the Holy Spirit has taught me that this is the true meaning of the word repent, irregardless of the technical meaning of words in Hebrew and Greek. As I am certain that even in the original languages, at the very least the connotation of repent implies a complete turning away (from sin to the Lord and His righteousness).Again, someone who changed their mind will have fruit that shows they changed their mind.

Slug1
May 16th 2017, 02:24 PM
Again, someone who changed their mind will have fruit that shows they changed their mind.Judas changed his mind about what he did to Christ. He was even remorseful due to changing his mind :hmm: After he changed his mind... his fruit bore, what?

Noeb
May 16th 2017, 03:21 PM
You think you are proving what exactly? Lol

keck553
May 16th 2017, 03:41 PM
Judas changed his mind about what he did to Christ. He was even remorseful due to changing his mind :hmm: After he changed his mind... his fruit bore, what?

Judas is an odd duck in the Biblical narrative. But I would say Judas fulfilled "nacham" but did not fulfill "shuv." He might have changed his mind, but he did not turn to God.

Slug1
May 16th 2017, 03:55 PM
Judas is an odd duck in the Biblical narrative. But I would say Judas fulfilled "nacham" but did not fulfill "shuv." He might have changed his mind, but he did not turn to God.Hooah, repentance is a changing of mind AND ALSO, of a change in action. NO one can say that repentance is simply a changing of one's mind. That is only half the equation and without the result of a change in action, repentance did not happen.

keck553
May 16th 2017, 04:10 PM
Hooah, repentance is a changing of mind AND ALSO, of a change in action. NO one can say that repentance is simply a changing of one's mind. That is only half the equation and without the result of a change in action, repentance did not happen.

Unfortunately the Greek word for "changing one's mind" does not contain the Hebrew idea of turning to God. It is a very secular term that basically means "turning to reality," and thus we have folks going to Strong's and yanking out the literal meaning without realizing the writers who wrote the New Testament were using the Hebrew ideal, not the secular Greek ideal.

This is why we are told to study to show ourselves approved. The idea of repentance and forgiveness (expressed at a human level) begins with Joseph, and the idea of appeasement (the literal Greek meaning) as a cultural mind-set ends there. We need to, at the very least understand the mindset of the folks who wrote these letters under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Who set the idea of repentance in the minds of the Old Testament writers and prophets to begin with.

Slug1
May 16th 2017, 04:19 PM
Unfortunately the Greek word for "changing one's mind" does not contain the Hebrew idea of turning to God. It is a very secular term that basically means "turning to reality," and thus we have folks going to Strong's and yanking out the literal meaning without realizing the writers who wrote the New Testament were using the Hebrew ideal, not the secular Greek ideal.

This is why we are told to study to show ourselves approved. The idea of repentance and forgiveness (expressed at a human level) begins with Joseph, and the idea of appeasement (the literal Greek meaning) as a cultural mind-set ends there. We need to, at the very least understand the mindset of the folks who wrote these letters under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Who set the idea of repentance in the minds of the Old Testament writers and prophets to begin with.Yep, I was rereading my previous post and was going to make an edit. This is more of what I wanted to say...

Hooah, repentance is a changing of mind AND ALSO, of a change in action (direction). NO one can say that repentance is simply a changing of one's mind. That is only half the equation and without the result of a change in action (direction), repentance did not happen.

Noeb
May 16th 2017, 04:30 PM
Unfortunately the Greek word for "changing one's mind" does not contain the Hebrew idea of turning to God. It is a very secular term that basically means "turning to reality," and thus we have folks going to Strong's and yanking out the literal meaning without realizing the writers who wrote the New Testament were using the Hebrew ideal, not the secular Greek ideal.

This is why we are told to study to show ourselves approved. The idea of repentance and forgiveness (expressed at a human level) begins with Joseph, and the idea of appeasement (the literal Greek meaning) as a cultural mind-set ends there. We need to, at the very least understand the mindset of the folks who wrote these letters under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Who set the idea of repentance in the minds of the Old Testament writers and prophets to begin with.
Very, very well said!

keck553
May 16th 2017, 04:41 PM
Yep, I was rereading my previous post and was going to make an edit. This is more of what I wanted to say...

Hooah, repentance is a changing of mind AND ALSO, of a change in action (direction). NO one can say that repentance is simply a changing of one's mind. That is only half the equation and without the result of a change in action (direction), repentance did not happen.

Actions usually naturally follow one's genuine change of mind. If that doesn't happen, then the thought pattern really hasn't changed, and the "change of mind" was just an appeasement and hypocrisy. For example someone who drinks too much and regrets the consequences will say "I will never drink again..." but the very next week they will be found tipping the bottle. This is not a genuine change of thought pattern, it is an appeasement to make them feel better about their current condition.

Until we truly understand that forgiveness means the transgression has cured our shame and removed the sin from our value as a human being we will always lean towards appeasement to avoid a perceived act of vengeance upon our souls. This is just not reality in the Biblical concept of forgiveness. When someone mentions Kind David, what is the first thing that comes to many? "Murderer" "Thief" "Bad husband" Bad father."

But some see King David as God does: "redeemed." And this is how we, who belong to Jesus should see ourselves because of what God did on our behalf. It would be denying God's gift to reject it, but glorifying to God to accept it.

The sin is unattached from the sinner when they are forgiven. Yet it is a human characteristic to keep attaching the sin back on the sinner, even after God has forgave them. And that is our struggle and why we fail. Like Joseph's brothers, some keep trying to redeem themselves with acts of appeasement (this is apart from providing restoration to a harmed party which is not an appeasement). If Joseph wept over his brother's acts of appeasement, imagine the heart of God seeing us completely miss the mark. Actually we do not need to imagine it, we can read it in Matthew 23.

Brother Mark
May 17th 2017, 11:48 AM
Judas is an odd duck in the Biblical narrative. But I would say Judas fulfilled "nacham" but did not fulfill "shuv." He might have changed his mind, but he did not turn to God.

Indeed! I always thought it strange that Judas went back to the priest rather than to God. But then, under the law, wasn't the priest the right place to go? What light can you shed on this? It is clear that he didn't turn to the Lord.

Slug1
May 17th 2017, 12:23 PM
Indeed! I always thought it strange that Judas went back to the priest rather than to God. But then, under the law, wasn't the priest the right place to go? What light can you shed on this? It is clear that he didn't turn to the Lord.Here is a thought, one that offends religious people... Judas' act of going to the priest is fruit of a man who was always religious, not faithful/trusting toward God.

Brother Mark
May 17th 2017, 04:37 PM
Here is a thought, one that offends religious people... Judas' act of going to the priest is fruit of a man who was always religious, not faithful/trusting toward God.

Indeed! And it also makes me wonder if he saw Jesus as God. Seems to me he saw him as a good man, but I could be mistaken.