ARCHIVE: Free From Sin - 1 John
- Thread starter Sozo
- Start date
Because prior to Christ's work being applied to us we ARE slaves of sin, we cannot save ourselves.Sozo said:
After we are baptized into Christ's death God associates us with Christ and we are no longer viewed as sinners. All of our sins are covered, our past sin, our present sin and our future sin. All of our sin.
But that doesn't mean that we still don't miss that mark and do sinful things. It's just that the penalty for that sin has already been paid for in full by Christ's death on the cross.
Paul wrote to those in the Body...
1Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. 9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.
Therefore it is clear we can sin, but thankfully that sin is already been paid for.
Fantastic!Sozo said:
What a great friend you are. I am so glad we could reason together.
Sozo... the fruit of the Spirit, why is yours so sour?
Daniel50
New member
Knight said:Fantastic!
What a great friend you are. I am so glad we could reason together.
Sozo... the fruit of the Spirit, why is yours so sour?
Thank you dear Brother.
"Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.
The Body of Christ is not under the mosaic law. That is clearly what the verse is about (read the verse in context and it will be clear).Jefferson said:
When God set aside Israel and paused the mosaic law He didn't repeal sin. After all... if He did, there would be no need for a Savior.
Even after the cross sin still exists. It's just that some have their sin's paid for by the blood of Christ, while others are going to "go it alone" (so to speak).
elected4ever
New member
The word in the text that you sight is the word, hamariano in the Greek. It means, "to miss the mark" but that is not all it means. It also means, "to offend." It is also the same word translated sin. I really think you ask a very good question and one that is not easily answered. I wont to thank you for making me think about this. That is, as you know, one reason I love TOL. It often challenges one's beliefs and forces contemplation and prayer. We often dodge difficult questions but I will give this my best shot.Knight said:
Sin is not something that offends but something that contradicts God. Sin is the contradiction of God. There are many ways the Bible describes this contradiction. They are descriptions and not definitions any more that saying a Robin is a bird describes all birds. A Robin is a description of a bird but it does not define what a bird is. Violating the law of God is sin but violating the law of God does not define sin. Sin is the contradiction of God.
Paul has made it clear that eating meat sacrificed to idles is not a contradiction of God and we are at liberty to do what, according to Jewish custom, was a violation of the Jewish law and was punishable offense. Most Christians at the time were converted Jews and eating meat sacrificed to idles was offensive to them. They were weak in the faith and if our liberty caused them to do what they believed what was wrong and they had a guilt trip because of it we offended them. As weak as these Jews were in the faith they were still in Christ and to offend one was the same thing as offending Christ. We should not use our liberty as an excuse to offend our brother by our actions. We are pretty good at that here on TOL. Myself included.
I do not believe, and I think SOZO would concur that being with out sin means that we never do something wrong. I offend a lot of people. Most of the time on purpose. We should be aware of our weaker brethren and not use our liberty irresponsibly.
1 Corinthians 10:22 *Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
23 *¶All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
24 *Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
25 *Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
26 *For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
Charity
New member
Sin works from within; with outward friuts;
Sin works from within; with outward friuts;
I feel two laws at war inside of me;
One Law of sin and punishment, made accountable by Guilt unto an action for forgiveness,
Leading to death
That guilt will continue to burn until I take action to relieve
And another justification that Christ has taken the punishment; that I should not seek to bear that which he has taken from the world; waging war inside that I now could be denying him and his death for my sins.
A place of blatant accusing from inside?
Sin worketh in me,
Sin a violation of my conscience,
My Conscience the acting law of right and wrong within
My guilt burns that I bear fruit unto sacrifice for my conscience peace sake.
Even the good I do is bad when I work from the law of right and wrong within.
Sin on sin when I refuse to receive his grace and deny that he has paid and removed my sin as far as the east is to the west
Turn to the battle within that every thought be taken captive to God; that no offering of good deed may replace his sacrifice of life for us.
That you may be found with a pure heart, unto eternal salvation.
One may only grow in grace by suffering.
He who needs much grace is given much; and he who requires little shall only draw little.
And he who has drawn much grace shall offer much grace to others
Praise God in all your infirmities,
My Grace is sufficient for you.
Sin works from within; with outward friuts;
I feel two laws at war inside of me;
One Law of sin and punishment, made accountable by Guilt unto an action for forgiveness,
Leading to death
That guilt will continue to burn until I take action to relieve
And another justification that Christ has taken the punishment; that I should not seek to bear that which he has taken from the world; waging war inside that I now could be denying him and his death for my sins.
A place of blatant accusing from inside?
Sin worketh in me,
Sin a violation of my conscience,
My Conscience the acting law of right and wrong within
My guilt burns that I bear fruit unto sacrifice for my conscience peace sake.
Even the good I do is bad when I work from the law of right and wrong within.
Sin on sin when I refuse to receive his grace and deny that he has paid and removed my sin as far as the east is to the west
Turn to the battle within that every thought be taken captive to God; that no offering of good deed may replace his sacrifice of life for us.
That you may be found with a pure heart, unto eternal salvation.
One may only grow in grace by suffering.
He who needs much grace is given much; and he who requires little shall only draw little.
And he who has drawn much grace shall offer much grace to others
Praise God in all your infirmities,
My Grace is sufficient for you.
I agree which is why all of this (from Sozo) is an unnecessary distraction.elected4ever said:
Ultimately, the only thing Sozo is really saying is that once a person is saved we can no longer refer to the awful things he might do as "sin". Instead we should call it what it is i.e., murder, rape, theft etc. Which of course only clouds and confuses the gospel.
One might say... "Come to the Lord to have your past sin, present sin and future sin paid for." Which is a great message.
Sozo's message would be... "Come to the Lord to have your past sins paid for and change the name of your future sins to anything but "sin" ". :hammer:
Where is the pay-off? What is the point? It would only confuse the lost.
Sin is sin no matter who does it. The awesome thing that Christ gave us is the opportunity to not bear the burden, guilt and punishment for that sin. That is the power of the gospel.
elected4ever
New member
Do you concur with my definition of sin?Knight said:
Yes your definition is good, but you are also right in that it is not the ONLY definition of sin.elected4ever said:
Sin has several connotations which is one more reason that Sozo's dogmatic claim "Christians cannot sin" fails.
Now that I gave you my commentary on Romans 4 can you give me your commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:6-12?Jefferson said:
It is clear.
Paul (in the Body) telling brothers (in the Body) that they can sin against brothers and sin against Christ.
elected4ever
New member
Oh yes, it is the only "definition" but there are many ways that sin is "described" in the bible and they are sin, each and every one. At the heart of each description is the single common thread; the offense against the person, character and plan of God. Sin opposes all that God is. Sin stands in opposition to the very essence of God. Do you agree that there is a difference between being in opposition and and offending. I can offend without being in opposition. I do not oppose you but I am sure that I have offended you on occasion. If my offense causes you to lose your faith then I have also offended Christ because you are His. For this I shell receive chastening from the Lord. The problem is when the Greek word "hamariano" is translated, the translator makes no such distention so translating the word as sin in all occasions of its appearance.Knight said:
Hebrews 12:5 *And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 *For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 *If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 *But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Hebrews 12:5 *And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 *For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 *If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 *But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
This swine was looking forward to reading sozo's commentary. I did not have time to read its length before it disappeared. I also wondered why we should accept his dogmatism over other commentators who have mastered the original languages and have strong exegetical skills. I did not think I could do justice without significant study (it has been years since I translated I John...I think sozo did once also...or was it Bob Hill?).
Why is Knight not a Christ-hating, worse than Hitler person for questioning sozo's view on sinless perfection? This seems to be one of my bigger issues with sozo also. I appreciate most of Knight's posts on this thread, but do not find the Mid-Acts assumptions helpful, but more confusing. I would rather see relevant verses, including John, exegeted in context without the dispensational filter. I think we can reconcile the passages with other verses without dispensationalism.
If sozo's commentary illuminates the Word of God definitively, perhaps he will put it back up for interaction. Verse by verse exegesis is the way to go, and I commend him for the original attempt.
Let's all light lighters, stamp our feet, shout sozo over and over...perhaps he will do an encore :greedy:
Why is Knight not a Christ-hating, worse than Hitler person for questioning sozo's view on sinless perfection? This seems to be one of my bigger issues with sozo also. I appreciate most of Knight's posts on this thread, but do not find the Mid-Acts assumptions helpful, but more confusing. I would rather see relevant verses, including John, exegeted in context without the dispensational filter. I think we can reconcile the passages with other verses without dispensationalism.
If sozo's commentary illuminates the Word of God definitively, perhaps he will put it back up for interaction. Verse by verse exegesis is the way to go, and I commend him for the original attempt.
Let's all light lighters, stamp our feet, shout sozo over and over...perhaps he will do an encore :greedy: