ARCHIVE: Free From Sin - 1 John
- Thread starter Sozo
- Start date
Lighthouse said:
This is fair and true since you are not walking in sin, apparently. If your pastor sleeps with a woman besides his wife, that act is sinful. This is not saying he is identifying in total with his former godless life. Identify with Christ, but if YOU ever fornicate as a Christian, do not say it is Christ in you doing it (you would not, I assume), nor should you say that it is your old man or flesh doing it. It would clearly be an act of your will and every person, including your family, would know it was YOU doing it. It is also YOU who would have to stop doing it. Your theory does not square with practical common sense nor Scripture. The will, not a spiritual, nebulous concept, is sufficient explanation when you do something contrary to God's Word and ways (i.e. sin).
Lighthouse said:
Refute it, buddy. Is adultery a choice or do we all have to do it? Why do some fall into sexual immorality, but not others. Is immorality sinful or righteous? Do you know any believers, including yourself, that have sinned sexually? Adultery is not a thing or something the flesh does against our wills or Christ in us. It is volitional. Sin is volitional. Comment on the paragraph intelligently. Blah is not helpful for anyone.
I did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill. Matthew 5. Matthew 3... to fulfill all righteousness John was instructed to permit it at this time... His baptism.Lighthouse said:
Without His death... without His resurrection: Without His resurrection, a person's faith is in vain.
The one who practices righteousness... 1 John.
Challenging... but I'm not going to leave it until I understand it.
Romans 8 is what I'm refering to about the requirement of the Law.
Shalom,
Jacob
The Law primarily convicts us of sin. Keeping it does not save us, but it is still timeless principles for societal and personal living. Because we are saved, we will walk in loving obedience to the Law (idolatry, homosexuality, stealing, murder, adultery, hating parents, etc. is wrong in any culture for any person in any generation since these things are based on God's unchanging wisdom and character).
Antinomianism (lawlessness) is a subtle heresy that emphasizes grace to the point of seeing no societal or personal value for the law. Our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian laws/principles (at least originally). License is the other extreme. Love for God and others is the truth in the middle (Decalogue 1-4 about relationship with God; 5-10 about relationships with fellow man).
I read an interesting SDA article. They seem to be moving away from legalism to an emphasis on grace and faith (cf. WWCOG). We are saved by grace through faith alone in the person and work of Christ. They also affirmed the principles of the law to convict of sin and as guidelines for our relationships. Grace and loving obedience are not mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed concepts. Grace allows us to love God and His law without self-righteousness or works salvation.
Antinomianism (lawlessness) is a subtle heresy that emphasizes grace to the point of seeing no societal or personal value for the law. Our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian laws/principles (at least originally). License is the other extreme. Love for God and others is the truth in the middle (Decalogue 1-4 about relationship with God; 5-10 about relationships with fellow man).
I read an interesting SDA article. They seem to be moving away from legalism to an emphasis on grace and faith (cf. WWCOG). We are saved by grace through faith alone in the person and work of Christ. They also affirmed the principles of the law to convict of sin and as guidelines for our relationships. Grace and loving obedience are not mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed concepts. Grace allows us to love God and His law without self-righteousness or works salvation.
Does a principle, as you put it, allow for sin? There is no such thing as sin that God allows... as if the extremes you speak of are a spectrum between sin and no sin? How is it that there is a truth, in the middle? Part sin and part no sin? May it never be!godrulz said:
The legal system of the United States is not based on a "Judeo-Christian" ethic as you envision it. This is used today as a way to pretend that it is God's Law that was the original intent.
If you are speaking of SDA for the context of the Sabbath commandment, as if this were the pinnacle of "those who believe in Law"... then you are wrong. SDA has long been wrong on many matters. One thing that they are aware of is that the Sabbath commandment is for the seventh-day of the week. No need to go search out SDA doctrine to see if it compares with scripture.
Law and grace are not nearly comparable.
The Law does not give us righteousness.
Hold fast to Christ, not philosophy.
Shalom,
Jacob
elohiym
Well-known member
The law of Moses has many proof texts which support involuntary sins.godrulz said:
Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty. Leviticus 5:2
For more examples, please study the law of Moses.
No. It's just plain ol' sin stuff, like Paul was describing...godrulz said:
For the good that I would I do not (omissional sin): but the evil which I would not, that I do (involuntary). Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Romans 7:19,20
He's speaking of the omissional and involuntary sins of the Mosaic law, not volitional sins like murder and adultery. Paul states plainly that those who commit adultery will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9).
I have been trying to point this out to you for a long, long, long time. I am praying to God you will eventually agree with me.
613 point being that someone had to count them and when did this counting happen. i really don't know when the first was, but i'm curious if it happened later than earlier. For us to say they had 613... I wonder how we arrive at that conclusion, except from borrowing that idea from them? Is it the superstructure or the 613 or what... that so many are so against?
Shalom,
Jacob
Shalom,
Jacob
I don't believe you. I believe you have accepted the RCC's line, but I doubt you have any clue who the true Christ is.Spitfire said:
Of course I would never say it was Christ in me doing it. there is no sin in Christ, and light cannot have fellowship with darkness.:nono:godrulz said:
My will is not Christ's will. So it is not a part of who I now am.
Refute it again? No thanks.godrulz said:
I know. But you still seem to want to do it.
And there we have it. The Law is fulfilled.Untellectual said:
Okay. I agree. But what does this have to do with the subject?
Dude, I'm starting to get lost. What are you talking about? What is your point?
Seriously, man!
I read it, and I still don't know what you're saying...
I think I know what you are saying. Yes, the Law was fulfilled... by Christ. But, where we may differ... is that I am looking at what the word fulfill/ed means? Here in Matthew 5 some say confirm or agree even. I'm not sure on the word, by itself, really. Context is important always. Check that the word accomplish is different (vs 19). But, to just make a statement that Christ fulfilled the Law... you have to know what you are saying. It sounds to me like you are saying that we don't need to fulfill the Law. Who are they that are under the Law but the unrighteous? He fulfilled ALL righteousness. No one else has or ever will do that.Lighthouse said:
You are using the word vain as it is used for resurrection... for crucifixion. Obviously, you can't have one without the other... but I believe that this is a wrong idea to use it for crucifixion. It was used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 for resurrection.Lighthouse said:
Let no one tell you otherwise. 1 John.Lighthouse said:
"in us" is not talking about the requirement of the Law being fulfilled in Christ. It is also not talking about those who walk according to the flesh.Lighthouse said:
Shalom,
Jacob
Untellectual said:
What the hell are you on about? Or on, for that matter? And can you please give a specific verse in Romans 8?
I know that you can't have the crucifixion wihtout the resurrection. Could you please explain what I said that made you think I was misinterpreting something?
Lighthouse said:
You are not a sock puppet. You have a will that lets you chose between vanilla and chocolate, between sleep and work, between girlfriend A or B, between lusting or self-control, between getting drunk or abstaining, between fornicating or keeping yourself pure as Scripture exhorts us to, etc. Your will is part of who you are. It was not eradicated at conversion. We are not all clones controlled by Christ. Paul reminds us to follow God's will since some believers were not following Him in obedience to His Word. We are to line our wills up with Christ as He lives in us. Scripture does not teach that we no longer have a will. Because we have a will, we are either praiseworthy or blameworthy for what we do or do not do. God rewards us for our stewardship (acts of the will). Giving involves our wills. Serving, preaching the Gospel, etc. involves our wills. We are not passive. "I will worship the Lord..." The Psalmist was not a passive puppet only worshipping when God made him. I will bless the Lord...etc.
Freedom of choice is part of being in the image of God. Why are some of you avoiding volitional concepts like the plague (they do not automatically equate to self-righteousness or works salvation, so do not swing the pendulum from one extreme to another).