Do you know the answer? [Archive] - Theology Forum

LightSon

January 7th, 2005, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse
Are Christians condemned for their sin?

No
Originally posted by lighthouse
Are Christians subject to the law?

Depends which law you are talking about.
Rom 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

I hope you are subject to "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus".

Originally posted by lighthouse
Can Christians transgress the law?

have you ever broken the speed limit? If yes, then you've broken the law and the cops are going to give you a ticket.

Originally posted by lighthouse
Is sin imputed to Christians?

No.

Originally posted by lighthouse
Do Christians suffer the wages of sin?

Yes.
You can say adultery is not a sin all you want, but if you are stupid enough to try it, you will find it brings wages and they are stiff wages. The fact that you don't call it sin will be moot; you will stilll get the wages of your "righteous" adultery. Doesn't that sound silly? "Righteous adultery"? :down:

**I know you are not married, so this issue is hypothetical.** The reason I went through the logic puzzle on the other thread, was to show you the contradictions that resuilt from insisting that Christians cannot sin. To maintain your absolute view, you are forced to say things like "sin is not sin" or "Adultery is not unrighteous." This defies commons sense. You said I started from a false assumption. What assumption was that? Scripture says that "all unrighteousness is sin." In your view Christians don't sin, but then because some Christian commits adultery, you are forced to redefine adultery to not be a sin, and because scripture says "all unrighteousness is sin" you are also forced to redefine Adultery to not be unrighteous. :kookoo: Sorry for the kooko, but this is getting silly. Adultery is either righteous or unrighteous. You are forced to come up with third alternative to preserve your doctrine. For the purposes of this discussion, I do not think there needs to be a third alternative. Everything we do is either righteous or not. If it is not righteous, it is unrighteous. You may say, "what about eating a burger"? that is neither righteous nor unrighteous. No. If the Lord Jesus sat down to eat a burger, that would be a righteous act. In your view, if Jesus committed fornication (God forbid), that would have to be a righteous act, and what I am saying is that Jesus would not commit fornication because fornication is ALWAYS unrighteous regardless of who does it. Jesus was righteous for (1) who He was and (2) what He did. Christ fulfilled the law.

So if I sit down to eat a burger, it is a righteous act, if I am walking in the Spirit. If I commit adultery, it is proof that I have resisted the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit would NOT lead me or any Christian to commit adultery. I hope you can agree with that. Yes this would be a sin. Am I held accountable? In the long term, no. This will not be imputed to me. But in the short term, there are wages here on the planet that will result from this type of disobedience. Try cheating on your spouse and see if there is any loss of fellowship or other wages (consequences) that will befall you.

Originally posted by lighthouse
Is it obedience, if you have no desire to do the opposite?

Yes. Was Jesus obedient to the Father? Phil 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Obedience is doing what you are required to do by a valid authority. If we enjoy being obedient to God, we are blessed. That, IMO, is one of the marks of spiritual maturity. We are required to obey God's word. All the better if we enjoy doing what He asks. I don't know why you want to get all tripped up on this. We are required to be holy. Jesus said that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the pharisee, we don't get in. Thankfully, Christ imputes His righteousnes to us, so we get in. But Christ's righteous is not cloke so we can let the flesh have its way. As we surrender to the Spirit, Christ's righteousness will be seen in how we behave. If our behavior isn't right, it is an indication that we are not surrendered to the Spirit's leading. The difference is in us. Are we trying to keep the law to "get in" or be righteous? Then this is self-righteousness. If we are letting the Spirit lead us, then we will behave in a "right" way. To the onlooker, it may appear the same, and often spirit-led people are accused of self-righteousness, usually by folks who live as they please. But there is a big difference in me between acting self-righteously and letting Christ's righteousness live through me. The former is hard and counter-productive; the latter is the life of Christ and is a joy.

One Eyed Jack

January 7th, 2005, 04:35 PM

I believe it's possible for Christians to sin, but I also believe that God doesn't hold it against them if they repent. That's just the way I see it, and I don't feel like bandying semantics with anyone.

Sozo

January 7th, 2005, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I believe it's possible for Christians to sin, but I also believe that God doesn't hold it against them if they repent.

No offense, OEJ, but where does the bible teach repentance from sin so that God will not take it into account?

And...

Of what benefit is the blood of Jesus if forgiveness from God comes through repentance?

Please keep in mind Heb 9:22 "...without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

Lighthouse

January 7th, 2005, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by LightSon

No
I'm glad to hear you say that.

Depends which law you are talking about.
Rom 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

I hope you are subject to "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus".
You know which law I was talking about. Don't play games.

have you ever broken the speed limit? If yes, then you've broken the law and the cops are going to give you a ticket.
Don't make dumb jokes. Answer the question. You know which law I'm referring to. Don't act like an idiot.

No.
I'm very glad to hear you say that.

Yes.
You can say adultery is not a sin all you want, but if you are stupid enough to try it, you will find it brings wages and they are stiff wages. The fact that you don't call it sin will be moot; you will stilll get the wages of your "righteous" adultery. Doesn't that sound silly? "Righteous adultery"? :down:

**I know you are not married, so this issue is hypothetical.** The reason I went through the logic puzzle on the other thread, was to show you the contradictions that resuilt from insisting that Christians cannot sin. To maintain your absolute view, you are forced to say things like "sin is not sin" or "Adultery is not unrighteous." This defies commons sense. You said I started from a false assumption. What assumption was that? Scripture says that "all unrighteousness is sin." In your view Christians don't sin, but then because some Christian commits adultery, you are forced to redefine adultery to not be a sin, and because scripture says "all unrighteousness is sin" you are also forced to redefine Adultery to not be unrighteous. :kookoo: Sorry for the kooko, but this is getting silly. Adultery is either righteous or unrighteous. You are forced to come up with third alternative to preserve your doctrine. For the purposes of this discussion, I do not think there needs to be a third alternative. Everything we do is either righteous or not. If it is not righteous, it is unrighteous. You may say, "what about eating a burger"? that is neither righteous nor unrighteous. No. If the Lord Jesus sat down to eat a burger, that would be a righteous act. In your view, if Jesus committed fornication (God forbid), that would have to be a righteous act, and what I am saying is that Jesus would not commit fornication because fornication is ALWAYS unrighteous regardless of who does it. Jesus was righteous for (1) who He was and (2) what He did. Christ fulfilled the law.

So if I sit down to eat a burger, it is a righteous act, if I am walking in the Spirit. If I commit adultery, it is proof that I have resisted the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit would NOT lead me or any Christian to commit adultery. I hope you can agree with that. Yes this would be a sin. Am I held accountable? In the long term, no. This will not be imputed to me. But in the short term, there are wages here on the planet that will result from this type of disobedience. Try cheating on your spouse and see if there is any loss of fellowship or other wages (consequences) that will befall you.
I explained this to you on the other thread. The weird thing is you said the same exact thing I believe, except for a couple of things.

The reason I don't call it sin is because I don't suffer the wages [death] for it, I am not condemned, and it is not imputed to me. Therefore it is not a sin. There are other reasons, but those are a start.

I know there are consequences. And I never said there weren't.

Now, here's the thing. Romans 6:2 says we are dead to sin, and Romans 6:7 says we are free from sin. We are free from the wages [death], condemnation, and power of sin, because we are dead to sin, instead of dead in it. Those who believe in Christ, yet live in sin are lacking truth. And those who outright deny the truth are ot in Christ.

Last, eating a burger is neither righteous or unrighteous.

Adultery is immoral. I will agree with you on that. But morality is not what brings about righteousness.

Yes. Was Jesus obedient to the Father? Phil 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
Works for me. I am obedient to Christ.

Obedience is doing what you are required to do by a valid authority. If we enjoy being obedient to God, we are blessed. That, IMO, is one of the marks of spiritual maturity. We are required to obey God's word. All the better if we enjoy doing what He asks. I don't know why you want to get all tripped up on this. We are required to be holy. Jesus said that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the pharisee, we don't get in. Thankfully, Christ imputes His righteousnes to us, so we get in. But Christ's righteous is not cloke so we can let the flesh have its way. As we surrender to the Spirit, Christ's righteousness will be seen in how we behave. If our behavior isn't right, it is an indication that we are not surrendered to the Spirit's leading. The difference is in us. Are we trying to keep the law to "get in" or be righteous? Then this is self-righteousness. If we are letting the Spirit lead us, then we will behave in a "right" way. To the onlooker, it may appear the same, and often spirit-led people are accused of self-righteousness, usually by folks who live as they please. But there is a big difference in me between acting self-righteously and letting Christ's righteousness live through me. The former is hard and counter-productive; the latter is the life of Christ and is a joy.
And there we have it. I do not disagree with anything in that last section. I almost did, but in context it is what I hold to.

Grace is not license to sin. It is freedom from sin.

Lighthouse

January 7th, 2005, 06:24 PM

OEJ-
What causes repentance?

One Eyed Jack

January 7th, 2005, 06:37 PM

Look, guys -- I said I didn't want to bandy semantics.

Sozo

January 7th, 2005, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Look, guys -- I said I didn't want to bandy semantics.

OEJ... I'm not looking to get into a discussion with you about whether or not Christians can sin or not... I know what you believe.

I'm just curious what it is that you derived from the bible that made you come to the conclusion that Christians can repent from sin so that God does not take it into account. What is the Christians standing with God while He is taking your sin in account?

This is not a case of semantics, because there are no semantics in God's economy.

godrulz

January 7th, 2005, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I believe it's possible for Christians to sin, but I also believe that God doesn't hold it against them if they repent. That's just the way I see it, and I don't feel like bandying semantics with anyone.

Mr. Moderator. I generally agree with you. I have been labeled a Christ-hater, evil doer, and compared to Hitler for pointing out similar things.

Sozo

January 7th, 2005, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Mr. Moderator. I generally agree with you. I have been labeled a Christ-hater, evil doer, and compared to Hitler for pointing out similar things. And YOU will continue to be referred as such, because it is true.

godrulz

January 7th, 2005, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

No offense, OEJ, but where does the bible teach repentance from sin so that God will not take it into account?

And...

Of what benefit is the blood of Jesus if forgiveness from God comes through repentance?

Please keep in mind Heb 9:22 "...without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

Repentant faith is an initial CONDITION (not the grounds or basis for forgiveness) of forgiveness. Confession and repentance seems to be a condition of dealing with a specific sin in a believer's life. It does not negate or replace the blood, but appropriates the provision and makes it wise to forgive. Forgiving sin that is clung to and persisted in without a change of will and heart is foreign to the Bible. God does not just forgive adultery and encourages it to continue, contrary to His holiness. He expects the sinful behavior to stop (or do you say God automatically keeps forgiving before, during, and after the act despite indifference from the sinner?).

godrulz

January 7th, 2005, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

OEJ... I'm not looking to get into a discussion with you about whether or not Christians can sin or not... I know what you believe.

I'm just curious what it is that you derived from the bible that made you come to the conclusion that Christians can repent from sin so that God does not take it into account. What is the Christians standing with God while He is taking your sin in account?

This is not a case of semantics, because there are no semantics in God's economy.

There is a difference between salvation/relationship and fellowship/intimacy/purity. When David sinned, He felt far from God. Sin separates and makes us hide. It did not mean he instantly lost his salvation.

If a husband sins against his wife, their relationship is hindered. Divorce is not automatic, but it is possible. The barrier can be dealt with and forgiveness brings a new start.

godrulz

January 7th, 2005, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

And YOU will continue to be referred as such, because it is true.

SO, brother OEJ is joining me in hell, Mr. Judge?

Lighthouse

January 7th, 2005, 06:58 PM

OEJ-
I don't want to argue semantics, either. That's why I didn't ask a question that is based on defenition. I was just wondering if you thought repentance was initiated by us, or by God.:think:

godrulz

January 7th, 2005, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

OEJ-
I don't want to argue semantics, either. That's why I didn't ask a question that is based on defenition. I was just wondering if you thought repentance was initiated by us, or by God.:think:

Calvinists say that regeneration precedes repentant faith.

The Bible says that repentant faith precedes regeneration.

God influences and convicts...Jesus said that unless YOU repent, you will perish. Repentance involves our wills. God does not repent for us. He enables, initiates, but we ultimately must respond with humble repentance or persist in rebellion and no change of will or intellect. Do a word study in OT and NT on repentance (I once wrote a paper on it). It involves a change of will and mind. It is enabled and initiated by God, but not totally divorced from our personal responsibility (cf. faith, love, obedience, yielding).

godrulz

January 7th, 2005, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

Is this the crap that you believe OEJ?

godrulz, seems to think that you and he are saying the same things?

This entire imbroglio of anti-Christ rhetoric that he presents is clearly why this lifeless enemy of the cross has never come to know Christ.

Perhaps I can clarify before you read too much into this isolated post?

keypurr

January 7th, 2005, 10:26 PM

Obedience is doing what you are required to do by a valid authority. If we enjoy being obedient to God, we are blessed. That, IMO, is one of the marks of spiritual maturity. We are required to obey God's word. All the better if we enjoy doing what He asks.
:thumb:

Lighthouse

January 8th, 2005, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Calvinists say that regeneration precedes repentant faith.

The Bible says that repentant faith precedes regeneration.

God influences and convicts...Jesus said that unless YOU repent, you will perish. Repentance involves our wills. God does not repent for us. He enables, initiates, but we ultimately must respond with humble repentance or persist in rebellion and no change of will or intellect. Do a word study in OT and NT on repentance (I once wrote a paper on it). It involves a change of will and mind. It is enabled and initiated by God, but not totally divorced from our personal responsibility (cf. faith, love, obedience, yielding).
And who changes your mind and will? You? Christ regenerates us at conversion. You say that repentance from "sin" continues after conversion. So regeneration would have to precede that repentance wouldn't it? I say that when we turn to God [of our own will] then God regenerates us, and then we turn from our old ways because of Him.

LightSon

January 8th, 2005, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

And who changes your mind and will? You?

Sorry for butting in, but my answer would be....

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Phil. 2:13

because,,,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. Ro. 7:18

godrulz

January 8th, 2005, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

And who changes your mind and will? You? Christ regenerates us at conversion. You say that repentance from "sin" continues after conversion. So regeneration would have to precede that repentance wouldn't it? I say that when we turn to God [of our own will] then God regenerates us, and then we turn from our old ways because of Him.

Repentant faith are essentially simultaneous. I disagree with TULIP and irresistible grace and that God regenerates the elect arbitrarily and refuses to regenerate the so-called non-elect because He does not have to save anyone. Love is impartial. The Gospel is a clarion call to respond to truth impressed on our minds and wills by the Spirit. God changes us, but humans have a will and intellect in the image of God. This is not purged from us to the point that we have no self-determination. I and my pagan neighbour can drive cars because we have wills. My will should be in line with Christ's will by the renewing of my mind through the washing of the Word (Rom. 12:1,2; Titus 3:5).

We walk in a continuous state of love, faith, repentance, obedience. I do not believe that these things are a one time, punctiliar event in the distant past with the opposites coming into effect later in our Christian life. If I repent from sin and selfishness, I remain in this state after day 1 of being a Christian. It does not make sense to repent at conversion and then go back to the very things we repented of. It does not make sense to commit to love and trust Christ, and then go back to selfishness and trusting ourselves.

We repent from sin and selfishness without itemizing every sin we ever committed. We are forgiven without even knowing every sin. It is a change in ultimate intention to live for God rather than live for Self. We repent of SIN (not individual sinS one by one). If we sin after conversion, we do not re-repent for preconversion sins. However, why would we not stop the new wrong behavior and return back to a state of holiness on that particular issue. This is essentially repentance, though not identical to repentant faith at conversion. I John 1:9 is written for believers. Confession is part of repentance. It is saying the same thing as God (agree with) and conforming to His will instead of our sin.

James 5:15 ff. = written to believers of Jewish background, but NT believers nonetheless...there is neither Jew nor Greek, but we are one in Christ (forget the Mid-Acts view that would try to negate the truths of James for NT believers).

call the elders of the church...sing praises...pray...

"IF HE (Believer) has SINNED (what? believers do not sin....really? And you call me an idiot liar), he will be forgiven. Therefore CONFESS your sins to each other (not to a Catholic priest...we confess to God who alone can forgive sins, but we also humble ourselves before men for accountability and if we have sinned against another person)..."

I Cor. 11:27 (Paul addressing Corinthian believers at 'communion')

"...guilty of SINNING against the body..."

He even goes on to talk about being judged and condemned like the world if we do not accept the Lord's discipline (read the whole context).

Paul says believers can sin. Sozo and lighthouse say they cannot or only the flesh sins, but not the person, whatever that means in light of whole persons in the image of God (spirit, will, intellect, emotions). Or they call it something else besides sin. Paul and God call these acts by believers sins. Why water it down to match a preconceived theology?

Lighthouse

January 8th, 2005, 09:31 PM

:angel:

godrulz

January 8th, 2005, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

:angel:

Is there a different way to understand Paul's statements when he accuses believers of sinning because of their attitude and actions?

Lighthouse

January 8th, 2005, 11:02 PM

:angel:

godrulz

January 8th, 2005, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

:angel:

I see the Tylenol helped your headaches:doh: :thumb:

I feel the same way. Sometimes I just don't feel like answering people's confusion on my statements.

Lighthouse

January 9th, 2005, 03:21 PM

Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=650480#post650480)

and

here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=650759#post650759)

swanca99

January 10th, 2005, 11:47 PM

No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Did I pass?

swanca99

January 10th, 2005, 11:51 PM

Some Calvinists may say that regeneration preceeds faith, but I don't think Calvin himself believed that. Check "Institutes," Book 3, Chapter 11, the first 4 sections (I'm citing the reference from memory, but I think it's right...).

Sozo

January 10th, 2005, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by swanca99

No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Did I pass?

Nope.

swanca99

January 10th, 2005, 11:57 PM

How many did I get right?

godrulz

January 11th, 2005, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by swanca99

How many did I get right?

Unless the statements are defined, clarified, and qualified, you might be understanding them differently than intended. You may agree with the author in reality, but answer yes/no if you read it differently.

Lighthouse

January 11th, 2005, 01:13 AM

godrulz

January 11th, 2005, 01:18 AM

Without rules, one can conform with the same end result as if there were rules. The external rules are not so much the issue as the action, thought, motive, word, etc.

I do not know all the traffic rules, but I conform to them generally, even if I do not consciously, knowingly obey a rule that exists. Its a moot point?

swanca99

January 11th, 2005, 02:22 AM

Sounds like just a difference in how we state things.

Christians are not under the law (Romans 6).

Can I TRANSGRESS the law? Well, yes, I CAN commit adultry, etc. Not that I have to, not that I want to, but I have not lost my capability to do that which is against the law, so wouldn't that mean that I am still ABLE to transgress it?

Now that you have defined the only wage of sin as separation from God, rather than including physical death and/or all those other things that sin can bring about, then I would need to change my answer to "no" for that one.

As for your new question, to quote an old rock star (who was probably quoting somebody else), "Let me answer your question by posing another one:" Are you saying that because we are free from the law, there ARE no rules?

Lighthouse

January 11th, 2005, 02:29 AM

swanca99

January 11th, 2005, 03:57 AM

Hmmm...I need to check out your interpretation of Romans 4:15 (I'm in the data center right now and I left my Bible in the car). You may be on to something there.

godrulz

January 11th, 2005, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by swanca99

Sounds like just a difference in how we state things.

Christians are not under the law (Romans 6).

Can I TRANSGRESS the law? Well, yes, I CAN commit adultry, etc. Not that I have to, not that I want to, but I have not lost my capability to do that which is against the law, so wouldn't that mean that I am still ABLE to transgress it?

Now that you have defined the only wage of sin as separation from God, rather than including physical death and/or all those other things that sin can bring about, then I would need to change my answer to "no" for that one.

As for your new question, to quote an old rock star (who was probably quoting somebody else), "Let me answer your question by posing another one:" Are you saying that because we are free from the law, there ARE no rules?

If we are free moral agents before and after conversion, if sin is volitional/will (realm of 'morals' vs things) and not a thing (metaphysical), if the Law was from a Holy Lawgiver that included sanctions for violating His everlasting principles/wisdom//love, etc., then this thread needs more than one sentence leading questions. An expansion and explanation is needed to make sure we understand the same thing about the question's intent.

Committing adultery is breaking God's moral law, just as speeding is breaking a traffic law. This is true whether one is a believer or unbeliever. I have addressed Rom. 4:15 previously. It is not a proof text to take something that is self-evident and plain in Scripture and reduce sin to a euphemism or semantical issue because a believer does the exact same thing as an unbeliever in thought, word, deed, motive. There seems to be a confusing of issues relating to salvation, justification, holiness, the nature of sin, etc.

There are NO rules? How do you play chess or baseball? How do you drive a car? How did you do math homework? How do you live a life pleasing to God and beneficial to society? It depends on how you define the nature and scope of rules. The Bible is filled with principles relating to relationships, right living, etc. You can call them 'ideas', suggestions, laws, brickabracks, or whatever you want, but it would not be wrong to use the word 'rules' since that word could include the concepts of what a rule is. God is a Ruler. God is a Lawgiver. Rule and law are not OT words, but valid concepts when properly understood and defined. Romans 6:23 could be called a spiritual rule: the wages of sin is death. If you do not like the word rule, call it a peanut butter sandwich, as long as we know what you mean by the label.

Rule: "A method or principle of action, a set of instructions, etc."

Is this technically a 'rule'? Draw near to God and He will draw near to you? Seek first the kingdom of God, and all these things will be added?

One can define rule broadly or narrowly. We have to be on the same page to communicate properly.

Not all rules are bad. Do not climb the fence or you will fall over the cliff.

Col. 3 "Rules for holy living" (one Bible heading)

" (you) rid yourselves of all such things (anger, filthy language, etc.)"
"forgive"
"bear"

Col. 2 is "freedom from human regulations" and rules.

God has rules that are legitimate; man has rules that may or may not be in line with God's 'rules' (what you eat, drink, wear, day of worship, etc.).

Lighthouse

January 11th, 2005, 01:27 PM

I never said that there are no rules to anything you insipid fool! Stop lying about me! I said there are no rules for living a Christian life!

godrulz

January 11th, 2005, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

I never said that there are no rules to anything you insipid fool! Stop lying about me! I said there are no rules for living a Christian life!

How is sharing another perspective or trying to clarify what you are saying calling you a liar? You need a dictionary, bro.

I am saying you can call it what you want, but in essence, there are 'rules' for most things.

"Love God and love your neighbour" could be called a 'rule' by a dictionary definition. Maybe you mean that Christianity is a love relationship and not a list of behavioral, external dos and donts (another use of the word 'rules')?

"Love God and do as you please" -Augustine

vs Do not murder, do not steal cookies, etc.

The 'rules' are in our hearts and conscience, based on the revealed Word of God and His indwelling Spirit. We are transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom. 12:1,2). Paul's letters actually had many 'rules' for church and Christian life. Semantics again.

If we love God, we will not murder and steal cookies. We do not need a law or rule on a piece of paper to tell us that (but we could codify the principles as systematic rules and not break the spirit of God's intentions for our lives and relationships on this planet; 'restitution' is a principle or rule that still applies in the legal system and our dealings with sinners and saints).

Lighten up, lighthouse. You are getting your shirt in a knot over things you do not need to.

Who you callin foo, fool? Your grandmother wore army boots. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. You guys remind me of my teenagers, burn. :ha:

Lighthouse

January 11th, 2005, 02:16 PM

Oh, I'm hurt.:rolleyes:

swanca was not referring to rules for baseball and checkers, and neither was I. And you know that. Why you had to make it sound like that's what I meant is beyond me. Unless you realize that you can't refute what I actually said, so you have to lie to make yourself seem more trustworthy?

swanca99

January 11th, 2005, 08:21 PM

Back to Romans 4:15.

What do you see as Paul's purpose in Romans 4, and how does verse 15 fit into that purpose?

As you are applying the verse, connecting it with chapter 6 and stating that "you are not transgressing it [the law], because you are not under it" (if I understand you correctly), how does that understanding of the verse fit into the rest of Paul's argument in Chapter 4?

I realize that I am breaking into this thread after many replies, so if you have already answered my question in previous replies (or another thread), please point me to them (an accept my appologies).

Lighthouse

January 11th, 2005, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by swanca99

Back to Romans 4:15.

What do you see as Paul's purpose in Romans 4, and how does verse 15 fit into that purpose?

As you are applying the verse, connecting it with chapter 6 and stating that "you are not transgressing it [the law], because you are not under it" (if I understand you correctly), how does that understanding of the verse fit into the rest of Paul's argument in Chapter 4?

I realize that I am breaking into this thread after many replies, so if you have already answered my question in previous replies (or another thread), please point me to them (an accept my appologies).
First, do you agree that if you were playing a game where there were no rules that you could not break a rule?

Now, speaking of Romans 6, I like the idea behind verse 1. The whole sum of Paul's message is that we are free from the law, and that this freedom is not to be taken for granted. We are dead to sin. That means we don't live in sin. Those who live in sin are not dead to it, and are therefore not in Christ. Romans 6:2 is very plain about that.

God has freed me from the law, and the reason I have not to grieve him is that I do not desire to take His grace for granted, and grieve Him. Anyone who takes His grace for granted is not under His grace.

Romans 5:13 is another good verse, and it states the same thing that 4:15 does, in another way:
"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

swanca99

January 11th, 2005, 08:54 PM

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." - Romans 5:13-14.

I am trying to understand both 4:15 and 5:13 within their contexts, and how they fit into Paul's arguments in those passages.

Yes, I would agree that if I were playing a game where there were no rules that I could not break a rule.

Lighthouse

January 11th, 2005, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by swanca99

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." - Romans 5:13-14.

I am trying to understand both 4:15 and 5:13 within their contexts, and how they fit into Paul's arguments in those passages.

Yes, I would agree that if I were playing a game where there were no rules that I could not break a rule.
Now, if I could show you, beyond the shadow of a doubt that there are no rules that a Christian must live by, what would you do? Would you go about willy nilly just doing whatever, not caring if it grieved the Spirit?

swanca99

January 11th, 2005, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Now, if I could show you, beyond the shadow of a doubt that there are no rules that a Christian must live by, what would you do? Would you go about willy nilly just doing whatever, not caring if it grieved the Spirit?

This is what Romans 6 is all about, in my opinion. The law is not our rule of life. We are "dead to sin." For a Christian to live in sin is inconsistent with his/her standing in Christ (6:15-18). I have often asked the same question of those who believe that the law is the Christian's rule of life. If you have yeilded yourself to God, and if you are dead to sin, it makes no sense that you would "go about willy nilly just doing whatever, not caring if it grieved the Spirit"

(I hope this "quote" thing works...it's the first time I've tried it).

Poly

January 11th, 2005, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by swanca99

This is what Romans 6 is all about, in my opinion. The law is not our rule of life. We are "dead to sin." For a Christian to live in sin is inconsistent with his/her standing in Christ (6:15-18). I have often asked the same question of those who believe that the law is the Christian's rule of life. If you have yeilded yourself to God, and if you are dead to sin, it makes no sense that you would "go about willy nilly just doing whatever, not caring if it grieved the Spirit"

(I hope this "quote" thing works...it's the first time I've tried it).

Sozo?

swanca99

January 11th, 2005, 09:31 PM

Oops...forgot to add...

I'm still curious about the contexts of 4:15 and 5:13, as I stated in my previous posts tonight.

swanca99

January 11th, 2005, 09:36 PM

I also forgot to add, Lighthouse, that although I agree that Christians are not under the law, I'm not 100 percent convinced yet that there are "no rules."

Much of what is in the law in repeated in the New Testament as related to Christians.

Lighthouse

January 11th, 2005, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by swanca99

This is what Romans 6 is all about, in my opinion. The law is not our rule of life. We are "dead to sin." For a Christian to live in sin is inconsistent with his/her standing in Christ (6:15-18). I have often asked the same question of those who believe that the law is the Christian's rule of life. If you have yeilded yourself to God, and if you are dead to sin, it makes no sense that you would "go about willy nilly just doing whatever, not caring if it grieved the Spirit"
Precisely!

(I hope this "quote" thing works...it's the first time I've tried it).
:thumb:

Lighthouse

January 11th, 2005, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by swanca99

I also forgot to add, Lighthouse, that although I agree that Christians are not under the law, I'm not 100 percent convinced yet that there are "no rules."

Much of what is in the law in repeated in the New Testament as related to Christians.
When? Before, or after the cross?

There are no rules. There is the fruit of the Spirit, which is produced by the Spirit...we only bear it.

And when we are renewed by the transforming of our minds [into the mind of Christ], and made new [new creations] then our wills are changed into the will of God. We do not desire the lusts of the flesh. And when we do not desire them we do not have to volitionally run from them. Capability has nothing to do with it. Desire is everything. Those born of God desire the things of God.

Also:
1 John 3 has a great way to say it.
"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man decieve you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 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."
-verses 5-9

godrulz

January 11th, 2005, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

First, do you agree that if you were playing a game where there were no rules that you could not break a rule?

If there were not rules, written or understood, it would not be a game. It would be chaos and meaningless.

If there is structure, whether it was written down or not, it could still have rules.

In law, ignorance of the law or rules is not a defense. Whether you are aware of them or not, you can break them.

So, I am having a hard time understanding what you are getting at. Something smells fishy even if I cannot put my finger on it yet.

godrulz

January 11th, 2005, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by swanca99

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." - Romans 5:13-14.

I am trying to understand both 4:15 and 5:13 within their contexts, and how they fit into Paul's arguments in those passages.

Yes, I would agree that if I were playing a game where there were no rules that I could not break a rule.

Context is the key. One has to follow closely Paul's argument lest we proof text.

godrulz

January 11th, 2005, 10:51 PM

godrulz

January 11th, 2005, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

When? Before, or after the cross?

There are no rules. There is the fruit of the Spirit, which is produced by the Spirit...we only bear it.

And when we are renewed by the transforming of our minds [into the mind of Christ], and made new [new creations] then our wills are changed into the will of God. We do not desire the lusts of the flesh. And when we do not desire them we do not have to volitionally run from them. Capability has nothing to do with it. Desire is everything. Those born of God desire the things of God.

Also:
1 John 3 has a great way to say it.
"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man decieve you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 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."
-verses 5-9

The fact that believers can lust or overeat or be angry shows that our desires sometimes are flleshly. No excuse, but this is why Paul exhorts believers to not lust, be angry, be gluttons, etc. Some in the church were, despite Pauline teaching.

Lighthouse

January 11th, 2005, 11:20 PM

Yes, sometimes they are. But not as a constant! And we are not condemned in the times that we desire the wrong!:doh:

swanca99

January 11th, 2005, 11:36 PM

I was thinking of after the cross.

"Flee fornication." - 1 Cor. 6:18

"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry" - Col. 3:5

"Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." - Hebrews 13:5

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." - Hebrews 13:17

Aren't these rules?

swanca99

January 11th, 2005, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Context is the key. One has to follow closely Paul's argument lest we proof text.

I agree, and it's that context that I am trying to determine.

Please see my questions directed to Lighthouse in previous replies to see if you can shed any light on them.

I'll be trying to study it a little myself in the next few days as well, but I'm in the middle of my "long week" (five 12-hour nights) and won't have much time until next week.

godrulz

January 12th, 2005, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Yes, sometimes they are. But not as a constant! And we are not condemned in the times that we desire the wrong!:doh:

I agree with the constant, as I have pointed out with the Greek present, continuous tense. I still cannot wrap my head around the condemned part. We are not condemned to hell, but God disciplines those He loves as treats us as children. If He does not 'condemn' wrong, then it seems He would be condoning it, contrary to His holiness and what is for our good. More clarification needed (without just repeating the same assumptions, begging the question).

godrulz

January 12th, 2005, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by swanca99

I was thinking of after the cross.

"Flee fornication." - 1 Cor. 6:18

"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry" - Col. 3:5

"Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." - Hebrews 13:5

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." - Hebrews 13:17

Aren't these rules?

It would be within the dictionary definition, but since it contradicts some people's assumptions, the semantical games start (my opinion/observation until clarified).

godrulz

January 12th, 2005, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Sozo

Paul gave us a great many instructions, admonitions, exhortations, and advice on no longer walking according to those things in which we once walked; nor to participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness. Why? Because we have been set free from those things. We have a new hope! All things have been given to us in Christ that pertain to life and godliness. There is no reason to steal, when you know that your treasure is in heaven. It would be foolish to do anything that goes against the best interest of your neighbor, because we now have our eyes fixed on the author and perfector of faith. We have a new agenda! We have a new hope! We have a new life, and Paul wants us to renew our minds with the things that are above and not the things of this world. Paul made it clear that even though all things were permissable, not all things are profitable, and he will not be mastered by anything. Should it be any other way for us?

This stands true, but some things are not just unprofitable, they are morally and inherently wrong. We do not abstain from adultery because it is unprofitable (true, but not the only reason; it is also not inherently sinful for an unbeliever, but just unprofitable for a believer; by definition, it is always sin. Sin is a choice. If you perceive that sin is a 'thing' or substance, then one can water it down and call it something that God does not call it). We abstain because it violates the everlasting moral Law of God and His revealed holy character.

The context of Paul's use of 'unprofitable' related to grey areas like meat offered to idols. He was giving principles of wisdom for areas that believers had differences of opinion about. The principles apply to our issues like movies, lotteries, social drinking, etc. They may be cultural or conscience issues. Paul gets to the heart of the matter. THEY were saying (Cor.; Rom.) that 'everything is permissible' (note quotation marks in some translations...Paul was quoting the Corinthian's false ideas, not giving a Spirit inspired truth...all things are NOT permissible for a believer unless it is a non-moral issue like meat offered to idols). Paul reminded them that not everything is profitable, beneficial, or wise. He also talked about the strong and weak brother in the context of uncertain areas, not areas that were explicitly right or wrong in the Old or New Covenant. He differentiated what a believer does in public vs private. It may be OK to eat the meat in your home, but not in public to cause a weaker brother to stumble. Corinthians was issue literature. The pattern in the book is for Paul to quote what 'THEY' were saying (incorrect ideas), and then respond with wisdom from the Spirit. They had issues, and Paul addressed them with principles of wisdom when they were not clearly right or wrong based on God's previous revelation and Law.

Thou shalt not steal was in the Decalogue as much as murder and idol worship. These things are unprofitable because they are also sinful (other things are unprofitable because they waste time, cause new believer's to stumble, give the appearance of evil, etc.). They are sinful whether commited by a believer or unbeliever. Rather than just call them unprofitable, why not call them what God does and tweak your theology to line up with the Word. Just because a believer can make a sinful choice (not even you believe a Christian cannot have an affair), does not have to negate the other truths you stand for. One sin does not send a believer to hell even if we are all condemned as sinners by one sin before conversion. Calling sin something else does not validate your views. It just sounds like a loophole to keep defending them.

Lighthouse

January 12th, 2005, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by swanca99

I was thinking of after the cross.

"Flee fornication." - 1 Cor. 6:18

"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry" - Col. 3:5

"Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." - Hebrews 13:5

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." - Hebrews 13:17

Aren't these rules?
Not necessarily.

Also, do you believe what it says about God in Hebrews 13:5? That He will never leave you, nor forsake you?

Rolf Ernst

January 12th, 2005, 08:43 PM

Answer to last question: of course it is obedience. The truest obedience is conformity of heart--not merely action--to God's moral principles. A better question would be, "is it really obedience if the heart is not also willingly involved in an act of obedience?"

Lot's wife left Sodom with him, but her heart remained in Sodom.

swanca99

January 12th, 2005, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

What are you suggesting? Any variance from complete obedience to any of these things would be sin? The wages of sin is death! If you come short of the glory of God in any area of your life, then you are a sinner, and under the wrath of God, and you cannot be saved.

I do believe that Christians can sin, if that's what you mean. The wages of sin is death allright...but the penalty was paid for us. We are still saved, although we may suffer other consequences, like physical death as in 1 Corinthians 11.

Originally posted by lighthouse

Also, do you believe what it says about God in Hebrews 13:5? That He will never leave you, nor forsake you?

Yes, I do.

Lighthouse

January 13th, 2005, 12:08 AM

Is a baby who dies, even before they are born [aborted or stillborn] guilty of sin?

godrulz

January 13th, 2005, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Not necessarily.

Also, do you believe what it says about God in Hebrews 13:5? That He will never leave you, nor forsake you?

This truth does not mean that man will not leave and forsake God. He does not coerce relationship or perseverance.

godrulz

January 13th, 2005, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Is a baby who dies, even before they are born [aborted or stillborn] guilty of sin?

No, unless you believe in Adamic 'original' sin (Augustine's Federal Headship of Adam THEORY).

Are we sinners because we sin? Yes.

Do we sin because we are born sinners? No.

Do all sin? Yes.

Are all saved? No.

Why not? Hint: image of God (free moral agency).

Lighthouse

January 13th, 2005, 01:52 AM

Do we sin because we are sinners? Yes!

godrulz

January 13th, 2005, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Do we sin because we are sinners? Yes!

Are we born sinners or are we born innocent (is sin a choice or a substance passed on from Adam)?

Now that unbelievers are grown sinners through habitual choices that reinforce the flesh, it is easier to sin continuously. Now we sin because we are sinners, but we became sinners by sinning. Before Adam sinned, he was not a sinner. He was created innocent. He became a sinner (before the Law), because he sinned. He did not sin because he was a sinner. There are consequences to the human race after the fall. This is physical depravity. We have a propensity to sin and the flesh, but there is not something causative back of the will inherited in our genes from Adam. Moral depravity only occurs after wrong moral choices (sin) and lawlessness (disobedience/selfishness) occurs.

swanca99

January 13th, 2005, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Is a baby who dies, even before they are born [aborted or stillborn] guilty of sin?

Although I'm always open to Scriptural proof to the contrary, I would say the answer to this question is "yes," based on the concept of original sin, which is given support by Scriptures such as Romans 5:13-21 and Psalm 51:5.

However, Lighthouse, I sensed that you were asking this question to bait us for further discussion along the lines of what preceeded. If that's the case, please state the answer you believe and move on (I have read that some systems of Theology believe that the corruption of nature that resulted from Adam's sin is a physical and mental disorder that LEADS to sin, but that it is not sin itself).

godrulz

January 13th, 2005, 03:45 AM

Ps. 51:5 is a Hebraism that is not a proof text for original sin. This passage is not didactic (teaching) for harmartiology (doctrine of sin). Similar passages imply praying from the womb. A baby does not have mental and moral capacity to pray or sin.

cf. Ps. 58:3; 71:6

Sozo

January 13th, 2005, 09:29 AM

"When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth."

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one."

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

"For if through the offence of one many be dead"

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one"

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation"

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"

"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

The Gnostics denied that man is born with a sin nature. But, we know from Romans 6 that is a lie.

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin."

Those who teach against the sin nature of man (a nature we are born with), make an illogical leap in reason.

If we are born in this world free from sin, then our "old man" would be sin free. And the new man would be the one who became a sinner. The "body of sin", would have to be the new man and not the old man. Paul would have referred to our sin nature as the in-between man. It's quite ludicrious.

Lighthouse

January 13th, 2005, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by swanca99

Although I'm always open to Scriptural proof to the contrary, I would say the answer to this question is "yes," based on the concept of original sin, which is given support by Scriptures such as Romans 5:13-21 and Psalm 51:5.

However, Lighthouse, I sensed that you were asking this question to bait us for further discussion along the lines of what preceeded. If that's the case, please state the answer you believe and move on (I have read that some systems of Theology believe that the corruption of nature that resulted from Adam's sin is a physical and mental disorder that LEADS to sin, but that it is not sin itself).
So you believe that a stillborn child goes to hell?

godrulz

January 13th, 2005, 10:34 AM

Our 'sinful nature' (preconceived theology in NIV; Greek= 'flesh') is formed as we sin habitually. It is not innate or congenital. You still confuse the realm of morals (choice) with metaphysics (stuff, essence, being, nature). Paul does not say when we get the nature. It is a wrong assumption from Augustine that it is passed on genetically (choices cannot be passed on..."The soul that sins is the one that will die" - Ezekiel....we can't blame it on Adam or Satan).

Rolf Ernst

January 14th, 2005, 03:50 PM

Those who do not believe in original sin ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH.

It is original sin alone which reconciles both the death of newborn infants AND the assertion that death is a consequence of sin.

PLUS they also carelessly fly headlong into the host of verses well selected by Sozo in post #84.

godrulz

January 14th, 2005, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Those who do not believe in original sin ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH.

It is original sin alone which reconciles both the death of newborn infants AND the assertion that death is a consequence of sin.

PLUS they also carelessly fly headlong into the host of verses well selected by Sozo in post #84.

I do not believe in Augustinian 'original sin'Federal Headship of Adam theory. I do believe the wages of sin is death (Romans). I believe we are sinners because we sin (Ezekiel: the soul that sins is the one that will die), not that we sin because we are sinners born that way because Adam sinned.

"original sin" resulted in physical depravity that tainted the whole human race, except Jesus Christ. We all die physically due to Adam's fall. Physical depravity gives us a bent or propensity to sin; it is not causative.

Moral depravity is not inherited. Morals vs metaphysics involves the will, not genetics. We become morally depraved as we chose to live selfishly, sinfully, in the flesh, independent of God. We willfully rebel and sin in motive, action, thought, words, etc. We are responsible, accountable, condemned because we all sin (no one is righteous). It is a moot point. We all sin, we are all sinners, we cannot save ourselves, we need a Savior.

godrulz

January 14th, 2005, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

"When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth."

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one."

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

"For if through the offence of one many be dead"

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one"

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation"

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"

"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

The Gnostics denied that man is born with a sin nature. But, we know from Romans 6 that is a lie.

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin."

Those who teach against the sin nature of man (a nature we are born with), make an illogical leap in reason.

If we are born in this world free from sin, then our "old man" would be sin free. And the new man would be the one who became a sinner. The "body of sin", would have to be the new man and not the old man. Paul would have referred to our sin nature as the in-between man. It's quite ludicrious.

I affirm these verses but interpret them in light of their contexts and the whole of biblical revelation.

swanca99

January 14th, 2005, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

So you believe that a stillborn child goes to hell?

No. I believe that they are atoned for by the blood of Christ. However, I came to terms with this issue many years ago and, like so many other things, I can remember my decision but not all the evidence leading up to it. I do remember, however, that there was a book entitled "Heaven for Those who Can't Believe" by Prof. Robert Lightner, which had some convincing evidence. I may even still have the book, buried somewhere in a box or on a bookshelf...

What are YOUR thoughts? And can you think of any Scripture which specifically addresses the question of infants who are stillborn or children who die before they are mature enough to make a decision?

godrulz

January 15th, 2005, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by swanca99

No. I believe that they are atoned for by the blood of Christ. However, I came to terms with this issue many years ago and, like so many other things, I can remember my decision but not all the evidence leading up to it. I do remember, however, that there was a book entitled "Heaven for Those who Can't Believe" by Prof. Robert Lightner, which had some convincing evidence. I may even still have the book, buried somewhere in a box or on a bookshelf...

What are YOUR thoughts? And can you think of any Scripture which specifically addresses the question of infants who are stillborn or children who die before they are mature enough to make a decision?

2 Samuel 12:23 "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

The context is the death of David's son in judgment. David went to be with the Lord and was reunited with his child.

"Original sin" is Augustinian. Catholics believe in infant baptism (this is when we are 'born again' according to them) to deal with sin so babies do not go to hell.

Those without mental or moral capacity go to heaven based on their non-rejection of Jesus Christ. There is provision in the blood for mental retardation, fetuses, etc. Those who have mental and moral capacity and reject Christ will be lost.

Those who have never heard of Christ are lost since all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 1-3).

swanca99

January 15th, 2005, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

2 Samuel 12:23 "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

The context is the death of David's son in judgment. David went to be with the Lord and was reunited with his child.

That's the only one I could think of myself.

Originally posted by godrulz

Those without mental or moral capacity go to heaven based on their non-rejection of Jesus Christ. There is provision in the blood for mental retardation, fetuses, etc. Those who have mental and moral capacity and reject Christ will be lost.

Those who have never heard of Christ are lost since all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 1-3).

My thoughts also. The last part of John 3:18 comes to mind for your "non-rejection" idea.

Lighthouse

January 15th, 2005, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by swanca99

No. I believe that they are atoned for by the blood of Christ. However, I came to terms with this issue many years ago and, like so many other things, I can remember my decision but not all the evidence leading up to it. I do remember, however, that there was a book entitled "Heaven for Those who Can't Believe" by Prof. Robert Lightner, which had some convincing evidence. I may even still have the book, buried somewhere in a box or on a bookshelf...

What are YOUR thoughts? And can you think of any Scripture which specifically addresses the question of infants who are stillborn or children who die before they are mature enough to make a decision?
Well, the majority belief is that we are born into sin, so stillborns would definitely go toheaven under that. But I really like Romans 5 as an explanation for why stillbnorns, aborted children and babies who die, go to heaven. They do not know the law, and therefore cannot know sin. They have no law, and sin is not imputed when there is no law. Just as it is for Christians. I would say this verse applies for anyone who cannot know right from wrong.

godrulz

January 15th, 2005, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Well, the majority belief is that we are born into sin, so stillborns would definitely go toheaven under that. But I really like Romans 5 as an explanation for why stillbnorns, aborted children and babies who die, go to heaven. They do not know the law, and therefore cannot know sin. They have no law, and sin is not imputed when there is no law. Just as it is for Christians. I would say this verse applies for anyone who cannot know right from wrong.

They do not have moral and mental capacity, so you are correct. If sin is a selfish choice and not an imputed substance from Adam, then the baby is not culpable. He is innocent. If he has 'original sin' (whatever that means) lodged in his genetics, why would he not be condemned as a sinner worthy of hell? Original Augustinian sin is specious, not Scriptural. The Catholics would have a point to try to baptize the baby lest he go to hell...not.

Rolf Ernst

January 15th, 2005, 12:42 PM

godrulz--You say that you believe that the wages of sin is death. Yet
you don't believe in original sin.

How then do you explain the death of newborns? If there is no original sin warranting death because of Adam's sin, then the death of newborns contradicts the fact that "the wages of sin is death"
because: there being--according to you--no original sin meriting death
AND the newborn could not have been guilty of sinning personally. the conclusion must be in regard to that child sin was not involved in the child's death.

In regard to that child the death must have come not because of sin.

Rolf Ernst

January 15th, 2005, 01:02 PM

LIGHTHOUSE--your statement that calvinists cannot even go to the bathroom of their own free will is a gross misrepresentation of the calvinists view concerning free will.

All men have free will, but natural (unregenerate) men do not have the POWER to will that which is right in regard to God. They are in the bond of iniquity.

Analogy::a student in absolute ignorance of the material covered by a test has a free will, but they are without the power to answer any question properly. Nevertheless, that does NOT lessen the authority of the teacher to demand answers of the student. Nor does it lessen the authority of the teacher to penalize the student's inability.

Similarly, all men are accountable for all inability which came upon men as a consequence of Adam's sin. We are accountable for all inability that came upon Adam due to his transgression The fact that faith and repentance are beyond fallen men does not lessen the authority of God to direct men to repent and believe. All that Adam was capable of before his transgression, God can justly require of all men today, and reason with them concerning their failure to perform His directives.

godrulz

January 15th, 2005, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

godrulz--You say that you believe that the wages of sin is death. Yet
you don't believe in original sin.

How then do you explain the death of newborns? If there is no original sin warranting death because of Adam's sin, then the death of newborns contradicts the fact that "the wages of sin is death"
because: there being--according to you--no original sin meriting death
AND the newborn could not have been guilty of sinning personally. the conclusion must be in regard to that child sin was not involved in the child's death.

In regard to that child the death must have come not because of sin.

Good questions, friend and brother.

The wages of sin is death. Death is separation. Is this physical, spiritual, or eternal death? Maybe it is all three?

Physical depravity is a consequence of the Fall that affects the whole human race (Gen. 3). We all will physically die because of the Fall.

"Original sin" in the Augustinian sense is that we are not just physically depraved, but that we are morally depraved at birth. It makes sin a genetic substance passed on through the blood or something, rather than a wrong moral choice.

Moral depravity occurs when the individual actually sins. They will experience physical death and a propensity to sin because of Adam and his 'original sin'. They will experience spiritual and eternal death (lake of fire) because of their own sin and chosen moral depravity (not inheritable). The soul that sins is the one that will die- Ezekiel. We cannot blame it on Adam, Satan, the flesh, or 'original sin'. We are responsible, accountable, culpable because WE ALL SIN. Sin is not a causative substance back of the will inherited from Adam. It is lawlessness, selfishness, rebellion. It is volitional, if it is to be moral and not metaphysical (substance).

Death comes because of physical depravity related to Adam's fall and representing humanity. It is one consequence of judgment just as weeds and pain in child birth are reminders of the awefulness of his sin. We all sin eventually and will die spiritually and eternally. But thanks be to God, we have a Redeemer who died as a substitute for the penalty of sin. We have the gift of eternal life and are free from the penalty, power, and presence of sin if we come in repentant faith.

So, a baby is born morally neutral or innocent. They have physical depravity leading to death. They eventually sin when they have moral and mental capacity, leading to moral depravity increasing as sinful, selfish choices are persisted in. This merits spiritual and eternal death, in addition to physical death. We need a Savior!

So, whether we sin because we are sinners (Augustine) or are sinners because we sin (semi-Pelagius), we all stand as condemned sinners who cannot save themselves. Even though we are redeemed, we will still die. We have a hope of resurrection and glorification proving the victory on the cross will make us whole and free in spirit, soul, and body. We still suffer some consequences of the Fall (physical death), but are free from spiritual/eternal death, and eventually the power of physical death.

Lighthouse

January 15th, 2005, 04:29 PM

ROlf-
You're the first Calvinist I've heard say that men have free will. Do you not beleive in exhaustive foreknowledge?

swanca99

January 15th, 2005, 06:41 PM

Lighthouse - if you would consider me a Calvinist, you can count me in with Rolf on the free will thing.

The word "Calvinist" means different things to different people. Some consider anybody who believes in individual election to be a Calvinist. For example, Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, considered himself a "moderate Calvinist" - he did not believe in limited atonement. He considered those who did to be "extreme Calvinists."

When I hear the word "Calvinist," I think of somebody who is non-dispensational, believes in all the "TULIP" stuff, and pretty much follows the Westminister catechism, the Synod of Dort, etc. I think of theologians such as Berkhof and Hodge. I do, however, know dispensationalists who are 5-point Calvinists.

I have actually had Calvinists refer to me as an Arminian because I do not believe in limited atonement. My belief in the design or purpose of the atonement is similar to that of an Arminian, although I do believe in personal election.

Perhaps I'm a man without an ism...

Jonathan Edwards, from what I have read and heard, had a strong belief in individual election. The same with George Whitfield and Charles Spurgeon - in fact I think all of these even believed in limited atonement (I KNOW that Spurgeon did). Yet look at the way these men preached. They made such strong appeals to their audiences that you would think they believed ONLY in man's free will!

But I still get a kick out of your signiture.

godrulz

January 15th, 2005, 06:52 PM

Hyper-Calvinism, Calvinism, 4 or 5 point, etc.

There are also varieties of Open Theism.

Calvin himself did not believe in a limited atonement. That concept originated withTheodor Beza (influenced by Aristotle).

Lighthouse

January 15th, 2005, 07:42 PM

swanca-
You apparently don't beleive in 'Perseverance of the Saints.' Or, at least you didn't when this thread began. Do you now?

elohiym

January 15th, 2005, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

No offense, OEJ, but where does the bible teach repentance from sin so that God will not take it into account?"No offense, OEJ"?1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

swanca99

January 15th, 2005, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

swanca-
You apparently don't beleive in 'Perseverance of the Saints.' Or, at least you didn't when this thread began. Do you now?

Yes - Always did, at least since I became a Christian. I must have written something in an earlier post that wasn't clear.

Lighthouse

January 15th, 2005, 09:18 PM

Nevermind. I was thinking of something else.

SOTK

January 17th, 2005, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Are Christians condemned for their sin? No
Are Christians subject to the law? No
Can Christians transgress the law?No
Is sin imputed to Christians?No
Do Christians suffer the wages of sin? We don't suffer the "wages of sin" in that we will be condemned, but I believe it's possible for Christians to "Sin", yes.
Is it obedience, if you have no desire to do the opposite? No, I don't think so, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. If you mean am I being obedient to the Lord by doing 'right', I would say no. When I abide in Christ, I will naturally do things 'right' so I wouldn't exactly call that obedience.

Frank Ernest

January 17th, 2005, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I believe it's possible for Christians to sin, but I also believe that God doesn't hold it against them if they repent. That's just the way I see it, and I don't feel like bandying semantics with anyone.

I do believe that folks sometimes gloss over the many "IF"s in God's Word.

godrulz

January 17th, 2005, 04:26 PM

There are various classes of conditions in Greek grammar...

"IF....THEN..." is one common one to watch for....

Sozo

January 17th, 2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

I do believe that folks sometimes gloss over the many "IF"s in God's Word.

The "if" that OEJ proposes, does not exist.

Where does the bible teach repentance from sin so that God will not take it into account?

godrulz

January 17th, 2005, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

The "if" that OEJ proposes, does not exist.

Where does the bible teach repentance from sin so that God will not take it into account?

Repenant faith is a condition of salvation. He does not forgive those who persist in sin and rebellion. This would be unwise, not result in transformation, and would leave them in their sin. An earthly judge does not free those who are bent to continue in their crimes. This does not mean we have to list every sin at conversion. It is a response to the conviction of the Spirit that we are sinful, selfish rebels who need Him to be Boss, rather than us on the throne of our lives. The result is that we die to Self and have the life of Christ invade and indwell us (among other things).

Sozo

January 17th, 2005, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Repenant faith is a condition of salvation. He does not forgive those who persist in sin and rebellion. This would be unwise, not result in transformation, and would leave them in their sin. An earthly judge does not free those who are bent to continue in their crimes. This does not mean we have to list every sin at conversion. It is a response to the conviction of the Spirit that we are sinful, selfish rebels who need Him to be Boss, rather than us on the throne of our lives. The result is that we die to Self and have the life of Christ invade and indwell us (among other things).

I was not talking to YOU. I don't need the advice of Satan worshipping perverts to answer my questions.

This is the Exclusively Christian Theology forum and it is not a place for godless pigs to enter and disrupt coversations by Christans.

Go away.

God_Is_Truth

January 17th, 2005, 05:32 PM

godrulz

January 17th, 2005, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Sozo

I was not talking to YOU. I don't need the advice of Satan worshipping perverts to answer my questions.

This is the Exclusively Christian Theology forum and it is not a place for godless pigs to enter and disrupt coversations by Christans.

Go away.

I worship the Lord Jesus Christ, Almighty God. I have never worshipped Satan, even before I was a Christian. I am not a pervert. I am married.

I was not talking to you either. As you and everyone else does here, we often contribute our opinions to one another's posts. The moderators have not labeled me as demon possessed, so my authority is in Christ and His Word. You have a tool to ignore me, but your flesh likes to get its pound of flesh. Truth does not run from error. You are the one who promised to go away in a pout. Why are you back? Let me guess, as the sole defender of the faith, it is your responsibility to be a divisive force in the Body of Christ? The way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them. Ignore me, but do not dictate to me based on lunatic assumptions (demon possessed, worse than Hitler, Christ-hater, and now Satan worshipper?!). Despite your bad spirit and lack of discernment I do not stoop to call you foul, untrue things. You need rebuke and censure, not pats on the back from your limited fan club.

I love you, you love me, we are one big happy fam i lee:)

godrulz

January 17th, 2005, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

sozo, your PM box is full.

Care to mediate?

I believe he has crossed the line once again. Perhaps he would respect your opinion. Careful lest you incur his wrath.

Royal_Lion04

January 17th, 2005, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Are Christians condemned for their sin?
Are Christians subject to the law?
Can Christians transgress the law?
Is sin imputed to Christians?
Do Christians suffer the wages of sin?
Is it obedience, if you have no desire to do the opposite?

The book of Romans does a pretty good job of addressing all of these questions.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be the sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of the sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who lives in you. Romans 8:1-11 NIV

Are Christians condemned for their sin? Yes, but Jesus took condemnation in our place!

Are Christians subject to the law? Jesus fulfilled the law

Can Christians transgress the law? We already have!

Is sin imputed to Christians? No! for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23

Do Christians suffer the wages of sin? Yes, but Jesus suffered in our place!

Is it obedience, if you have no desire to do the opposite? No, it may just mean you don't have the desire to commit a certain sin.

The key word to your questions is "Christians." The word "Christian" means Christ-like. How do you become like Christ?:p

Lighthouse

January 18th, 2005, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by SOTK

You believe Christians can sin, but that they cannot transgress the law? What do you beleive sin to be? And do you believe that Christians can be unrighteous?

Lighthouse

January 18th, 2005, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Royal_Lion04

The book of Romans does a pretty good job of addressing all of these questions.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be the sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of the sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are not controlled by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who lives in you. Romans 8:1-11 NIV

Are Christians condemned for their sin? Yes, but Jesus took condemnation in our place!

Are Christians subject to the law? Jesus fulfilled the law

Can Christians transgress the law? We already have!

Is sin imputed to Christians? No! for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23

Do Christians suffer the wages of sin? Yes, but Jesus suffered in our place!

Is it obedience, if you have no desire to do the opposite? No, it may just mean you don't have the desire to commit a certain sin.

The key word to your questions is "Christians." The word "Christian" means Christ-like. How do you become like Christ?:p
Yes, the word Christian is the key word. We become Christ-like when Christ's life is imparted unto us. When we are Christians we are perfected in the Spirit by Him...made righteous by His righteousness. And freed from the law, and sin.

Christ did not merely take our place. He took away our sin, with His death and the shedding of His blood.

SOTK

January 18th, 2005, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

You believe Christians can sin, but that they cannot transgress the law? What do you beleive sin to be? And do you believe that Christians can be unrighteous?

As I stated in a recent thread where you and Sozo were discussing all of this with LightSon, I believe Sin to be mistakes, errors, inappropriate behavior, or anything displeasing to God. Christians can do all of what I just listed. No, we are righteous in Christ!

Lighthouse

January 18th, 2005, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by SOTK

As I stated in a recent thread where you and Sozo were discussing all of this with LightSon, I believe Sin to be mistakes, errors, inappropriate behavior, or anything displeasing to God. Christians can do all of what I just listed. No, we are righteous in Christ!
Can you show me in the Bible where sin is defined as you have defined it?

SOTK

January 18th, 2005, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Can you show me in the Bible where sin is defined as you have defined it?

Yes, it's in the 10 Commandments (Exodus), you can also find it in Deuteronomy and Leviticus as well as throughout the New Testament. Paul chastised or rebuked believers all throughout the New Testament in the many letters he sent them, did he not? What do you think he chastised them for? He chastised them for making mistakes, being in error, for displaying inappropriate behavior, and generally being displeasing to God. I would call those behaviors or acts of the new believers, sin, however, you could also call them mistakes, being in error, displaying inappropriate behavior, etc. As OEJ said, it's bandying semantics.

Lighthouse

January 18th, 2005, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by SOTK

Yes, it's in the 10 Commandments (Exodus), you can also find it in Deuteronomy and Leviticus as well as throughout the New Testament. Paul chastised or rebuked believers all throughout the New Testament in the many letters he sent them, did he not? What do you think he chastised them for? He chastised them for making mistakes, being in error, for displaying inappropriate behavior, and generally being displeasing to God. I would call those behaviors or acts of the new believers, sin, however, you could also call them mistakes, being in error, displaying inappropriate behavior, etc. As OEJ said, it's bandying semantics.
Okay. Let's try this again. Can you give me a spcific verse in which the phrase "sin is..." is used in connection with the definition you gave? Or, "...is sin?"

SOTK

January 18th, 2005, 04:31 AM

I believe the definition I gave amounts to worldliness:

1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly–mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? - 1 Corinthians 3:1-4

Here are examples of sin being inappropriate behavior, mistakes, etc:

25Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26“In your anger do not sin”[a]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27and do not give the devil a foothold. 28He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.

29Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. -Ephesians 4:25-32

And here:

1Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person–such a man is an idolater–has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.[a] 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them. -Ephesians 5:1-7

Here in Philippians Paul states that a believer should work out their salvation in fear and trembling. He warns the believer to do everything without complaining or arguing- to become blameless. This implies the potential for mistake or error. Working out salvation implies sin.

12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed–not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence–continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
14Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe -Philippians 2:12-15

Again, Paul tells the believer to not walk in a certain way:

8But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Colossians 3:8-10

Also of interest with the above scripture is Paul's phrase "being renewed". This implies a process. In other words, believers may not be completely rid of anger, rage, lying, malice, etc. One can view these things as mistakes, being in error, etc. Or sin. All of those behaviors must cause God displeasure or Paul wouldn't warn the believer to be "rid of them". Paul himself doesn't call those behaviors sin, but if they are not sin, what are they? Could those types of behaviors be inappropriate, mistakes, or errors?

Now, I believe what Paul has stated about Sin and The Law. I am not under The Law, and I am not condemned because of my sin. I believe I have been forgiven my sins. I also believe if I abide in Christ I am righteous. I just wanted to make that clear.

Finally, in many places in Revelation Jesus commands Churches to repent of things which they have done. He levels adultery at some, lying, being lukewarm, allowing idolaters amongst themselves, etc. What are they to repent of, Lighthouse? What do you call these things?

Now, I realize that I probably didn't give you the exact quote or definition you were asking of me, however, I think the scripture I cited supports my conclusion or definition.

One of the things that has bothered me about you and Sozo is this: you have both admitted to making mistakes or errors as Christians in past threads/posts, however, you both (to my knowledge anyways) have not ever successfully put a label on what these mistakes/errors are exactly.

Now, it's my turn to ask you a question. How do you reconcile all the scripture I cited in terms of Christian poor behavior? What is that behavior called? If it's not sin, what do you call it?

Frank Ernest

January 18th, 2005, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Sozo

The "if" that OEJ proposes, does not exist.

Where does the bible teach repentance from sin so that God will not take it into account?

Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Sozo

January 18th, 2005, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Isaiah 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. And how do you think that God brought this about?

"For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, But a body Thou hast prepared for Me; In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast taken no pleasure. "Then I said, 'Behold, I have come (In the roll of the book it is written of Me) To do Thy will, O God.'" After saying above, "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast not desired, nor hast Thou taken pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Thy will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, "This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws upon their heart, And upon their mind I will write them," He then says, "And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water."

Those who are in Christ that continue to make an offering for their sin through repentance or confession have an evil conscience, because they reject the ONE sacrifice for all time through Jesus Christ, and they blaspheme God, claiming that He does remember their sins and lawless deeds.

If God continues to take your sins into account, then there is no more sacrifice for your sin. God is not going to send someone else to die. "Without the shedding of blood, there is NO forgiveness"
If you or OEJ, or godrulz, or myself would claim that we still have sin, then it is not only the result of an evil conscience, but the only thing we have to look forward to is God's wrath.

I do believe that folks sometimes gloss over the many "IF"s in God's Word.

Here is an "if" you should not overlook...

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?"

godrulz

January 18th, 2005, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by lighthouse

Okay. Let's try this again. Can you give me a spcific verse in which the phrase "sin is..." is used in connection with the definition you gave? Or, "...is sin?"

Only if you give him the verse that says "God is triune" or that "the future is open". Sin is lawlessness, but it is also expanded on with other ideas (cf. life is not the only term to describe the nature of salvation...principles/concepts, even if not exact words....)

godrulz

January 18th, 2005, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by SOTK

I believe the definition I gave amounts to worldliness:

Here are examples of sin being inappropriate behavior, mistakes, etc:

And here:

Here in Philippians Paul states that a believer should work out their salvation in fear and trembling. He warns the believer to do everything without complaining or arguing- to become blameless. This implies the potential for mistake or error. Working out salvation implies sin.

Again, Paul tells the believer to not walk in a certain way:

Also of interest with the above scripture is Paul's phrase "being renewed". This implies a process. In other words, believers may not be completely rid of anger, rage, lying, malice, etc. One can view these things as mistakes, being in error, etc. Or sin. All of those behaviors must cause God displeasure or Paul wouldn't warn the believer to be "rid of them". Paul himself doesn't call those behaviors sin, but if they are not sin, what are they? Could those types of behaviors be inappropriate, mistakes, or errors?

Now, I believe what Paul has stated about Sin and The Law. I am not under The Law, and I am not condemned because of my sin. I believe I have been forgiven my sins. I also believe if I abide in Christ I am righteous. I just wanted to make that clear.

Finally, in many places in Revelation Jesus commands Churches to repent of things which they have done. He levels adultery at some, lying, being lukewarm, allowing idolaters amongst themselves, etc. What are they to repent of, Lighthouse? What do you call these things?

Now, I realize that I probably didn't give you the exact quote or definition you were asking of me, however, I think the scripture I cited supports my conclusion or definition.

One of the things that has bothered me about you and Sozo is this: you have both admitted to making mistakes or errors as Christians in past threads/posts, however, you both (to my knowledge anyways) have not ever successfully put a label on what these mistakes/errors are exactly.
<