ARCHIVE: Free From Sin - 1 John

[godrulz]

Yes, it is the only Biblical stance.. I will change my mind though just as soon as you can prove that the dead can sin, and that Jesus sins and that the seed I received when i was born again of the Father is corrupt seed. Just tell me how a child of God can be opposed to God? Just tell me how a person who is righteous is a sinner. I believe God, not popular Christian dogma. There is no religion in the world that will send you to hell faster that the Christian religion. Most men are religious but most men are going to hell because of it.

You still confuse metaphysics (substance, essence, being) with morals (choice/obedience/disobedience...not self-righteous morality, but the philosophical/theological concept of moral as in God is the righteous moral Governor of the universe...He does not govern moral creation in His image by the law of cause and effect, but by the law of love and freedom). If adultery is not a sin for a Christian, then God's holiness and Law are undermined, we have no responsibility/accountability, we should all be having our cake and eating it too...not defensible! Your ideas are abstract and illogical, so do not assume they are biblical.

 

[godrulz]

Yes, actually it is two words. Being stupid. We are commanded to live honorable among men. We do that by honoring God. If men punish us for doing an evil act it brings no glory to God. If men punish us for doing righteously then God is our avenger. We are to suffer for righteousness sake and not for the evil. In this way we honor God. We honor God when we point out the evils of homosexuality and the death that it brings. We do not honor God if we do the very things that bring the wrath of God on this dead world. We have the righteous nature of God and do right because of our nature. We are the light in a dark world and the salt that is poured into the wound of sin. Light cannot be seen by the willfully blind but can be seen by the one searching for the light. If our light does not shin then how will those who search be able to see the way. If our salt has lost its savor then how can the salt perform the function for which it is intended. The healing of sin. We do because we are. Not to justify what or who we are. We are already justified.

The will is the seat of choices (hence the NT emphasis on obedience and yielding). This is why we are responsible/accountable. We cannot blame things on a causative nature back of the will. Again, you confuse metaphysics (nature) with morals (will). This is why we are exhorted to do this or do not do this (Pauline verses). Our choices form a nature. Our nature does not cause our choices. Chosing to not adulterate or fornicate (sins) involves the will and mind, not a causative nature back of the will.

 

[godrulz]

1 Corinthians 10:23 *¶All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

"all things are lawful" It is lawful for a Christian to do anything on plane earth after he is saved. Why because "all things" are now lawful to him.

"All things are not expedient" What does the word expedient mean? It can mean advantage, to be better for, bring together, be good, be profitable for. So if we use these differing words then we get a better understanding.

1. All things are not to my advantage.
2. All things do not make me better.
3. All things do not bring us together.
4. All things are not good.
5. All things are not profitable to me.

"all things edify not." What does the word edify mean the word edify means construct, figuratively to confirm, builder or build up, to embolden. Now let's use this word.

1. All things are not constructive.
2. All things do not confirm.
3. All things do not build up.
4. All things do not embolden

You put all of it together and the verse would sound something like this. Now remember this is my construct. You may have a different or even a better one.

( all things are lawful for me but all things are not profitable for me and are not good in my mission because they do not bring us together. They do not work to my advantage or make me better. All things are lawful for me but all things do not confirm and build up my purpose. They do not embolden me nor do they confirm my mission)

Corinthians is issue literature. Many issues were introduced by quotes that were said by the fleshly Corinthians. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, responded to their wrong thinking. The wrong Corinthians were saying that everything is lawful, not the Holy Spirit or Paul. Paul then responded and corrected their wrong thinking.

I Cor. 7:1 is another example of this: The Corinthians wrote or said that it is good for a man not to marry. This was not the teaching of Paul and the Holy Spirit. Paul then addressed this issue and corrected their unbalanced understanding with fuller teaching. The first verse should be put in quotation marks to show that it was the fleshly Corinthians concept, not biblical truth.

You might reject this understanding, but more and more credible exegetes are recognizing this principle based on context and the rest of biblical truth.

 

[godrulz]

Remember Knight that the word also means offend. Not oppose. Try useing the word offend or offence and see what it says.

Every offence that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality offends his own body.


I didn't know that our fearless leader was also a :dunce:

I Cor. 6:12 "Everything is permissible for me" is a quote of the wrong Corinthians. It is not Pauline or biblical teaching. Paul then corrects their wrong view with sound doctrine.

v. 13 "food for the stomach and stomach for food" is also a quote of the fleshly Corinthians (famous for the immorality, etc.). It is not inspired truth....Paul corrects them and reminds them that God will destroy the body if they live for the body above the spirit.

Sound exegesis will spare you from proof texting and wrong conclusions.

 

[godrulz]

Ah, yes, tradition does play apart and in every translation I have ever read uses the word sin. Point well taken. Using the word sin when applied to a believer gives the wrong impression of what is being said and in my view weakens the real meaning of the word. We as Christians do not sin against our brother we offend them because they are weak and that is offensive behavior to God. It does not mean that we sin. Only sinners sin. There is not one sinner that is a child of god. They are all us to be sinners. God has given to them Of his seed and they cannot sin. (OPPOSE GOD) All sinners are children of the devil and no child of the devil has anything in God. All people who clam to be sinners and at the same time clam to be children of God do not know what they are talking about. This is nothing more than tradition and is an oxymoron.

Boo...eisegesis...foisting your preconceived theology on the text. Knight is correct. Check any interlinear or Greek tool. Change your theology, not the text.

 

[godrulz]

:rotfl:my "ignorants"?

Oh my... I think I just spit all over my computer monitor.

Has anyone else heard of my exegesis of the Corinthian quotes responded to by Paul? Some assume they are Pauline teaching, but they are actually issues the wrong Corinthians were bringing up that Paul responded to. In Bible College, 25 years ago, the best teacher I have ever had, built the case for "......". Some translations also pick up on this and put the Corinthian sayings in "...." to distinguish them from Paul's response. This does clear up some confusion and retains consistency with other biblical truth (all things are not permissible for a believer, but the Corinthians were into license and immorality).

 

[CRASH]

Happy Day! :bannana: The re-inforcements have arrived!



Thank you Turbo and Knight. This whole Christians can't sin thing is stupid and has always got on my nerves but I never wanted to jump into the fire Sozo has created for Godrulz. Finally, I couldn't help myself and I spent hours trying to point this out to Sozo last Saturday

Right Here - go halfway down to post 24 - it goes on for 4 or 5 pages . You've got to read it!

Just like this thread it has lots of unanswered questions.


I like to keep things simple and clear. My main points are:

1. Christians sin.:duh:
2. That sin is paid for by Christ.:thumb:
3. Godrulz may be wrong about virtually everything, but all indications are that he is a Christian so it is wrong to treat him like a child molester for believing Christians can sin.:cheers:

Sozo, I would like to see your OP if you are inclined to re-post it. If not, that's okay too. If you are rethinking your position that is awesome. I hope you are considering conceding the debate. It is sad, but Christians sin all the time, even you. Often the consequences are horrific. Praise God that because of Christ it is not held against us!

 

[godrulz]

I am wrong about almost everything? :sigh:

 

[CRASH]

Sorry. I put the word may in there meaning you "may" be wrong. But I can see where it might be unclear. IMHO I think you are wrong on a lot of stuff, but I would agree with you in several areas too! God Bless!

 

[godrulz]

Sorry. I put the word may in there meaning you "may" be wrong. But I can see where it might be unclear. IMHO I think you are wrong on a lot of stuff, but I would agree with you in several areas too! God Bless!

Which areas should I revisit? Perhaps I need to clarify or communicate better?

 

[elected4ever]

perhaps you idiots will believe this but i doubt it 1 John 3:8 *He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 *Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Go ahead and keep on sinning you idiots. You are a sinner and sin or you are righteous and not a sinner. You guys sure are stupid.

 

[elected4ever]

CRASH

Sozo, I would like to see your OP if you are inclined to re-post it. If not, that's okay too.

Don't get your hopes up.

 

[Delmar]

Knight has pointed out that the word sin has a range of meaning not just in our culture but within the Bible itself. So what's to be gained by narrowing the definition and blasting anyone who doesn't do likewise? It seems to me that it just creates confusion and can even create an unnecessary stumbling block for the lost.

It is a bit silly to say that there is one and only one exact biblical definition to any single English word, since the Bible was not written in English.

 

[Lighthouse]

If a tribe condones murder and cannibalism, it does not change the nature of their sin or the moral law of God. Just because humans do not have a law does not mean that God's laws are not written in stone and in our hearts. I think you are confusing truths about initial justification with experiences subsequent to salvation (check the context of proof texts).

Wrong application, moron.

 

[CRASH]

Which areas should I revisit? Perhaps I need to clarify or communicate better?

No. I think you are very good at communicating and I like the way you often quote scripture to make your points.

Our biggest disagreement (and I think you know this) is dispensationalism. To me it is so obvious and somehow you don't see it. This fundamental difference is the source of 10's if not hundreds areas that you and I disagree. Even with all of the changes I have been through in my Christian walk, I have always been dispensational. First, Acts 2 then Acts 9 after I read the Plot. I think I asked you this before and you said you had read it, but, have you read the Plot? Also, I am open theist. This would be another source of several disagreements regarding the nature of God. BTW, I'm not really interested in debateing these subjects too much because I don't have the time to devote to it. I have a great wife and 5 kids and I would rather spend the majority of my time with them and working to support them.

In Him,
CRASH

 

[Charity]

All men have fallen short; and the name Christian may not be the password

So how can we be out of our sins?

For he who is in his sins has not seen my face neither knows God
Oh but I did this and I did that; depart for I never new you

No measuring rod used for others; No measuring rod given for us; spared

 

[Lighthouse]

Knight-
In the interest of brevity, I shall answer as much as I can in a short post. I agree that it is pointless to try to explain to those who are not in Christ that Christians do not commit sin. They would not understand me, and would most likely stop listening before I could explain. However, I believe that a discussion between Christians can be fruitful. I have found three Biblical definitions of the word sin. And I have also found numerous Scriptures that show how Christians do not fall into any of those categories.

Is it still wrong to do these things? Yes. Do Christians still do some of them? Yes. Are they identified as sins in the eyes of God when someone who is not identified as a sinner does them? No.

And abortion is beside the point. Of course, e4e gave a decent answer. If it is illegal for someone outside of this country, but not illegal for us, if we are diplomats in that country, then it is not illegal for us to do while in that country [abortion is not the specific subject of this illustration]. And assuming there are no laws that should not be laws in this other country, then we know that whatever the specific law is, it is still wrong for us to do, though it may not be illegal [a crime]. But the bottom line is that if we are righteous, we will avoid doing it anyway, though it is not illegal for us.

 

[godrulz]

perhaps you idiots will believe this but i doubt it 1 John 3:8 *He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 *Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Go ahead and keep on sinning you idiots. You are a sinner and sin or you are righteous and not a sinner. You guys sure are stupid.

It is a difficult passage to exegete, but does not contradict other verses in I John (your interpretation does). One key is the difference between an isolated, unnecessary lapse into a sin by a believer, and the ongoing, habitual, defiant, godless sins and unbelief of an unbeliever (cf. I Cor. 6:9-11 these people go to hell, yet if a believer does one thing, they do not...there is an explanation despite your tendency to wooden literalisms out of context).

Name calling is not necessary for biblical dialogue, you stoopid fool, moron, idiot, jerk

 

[godrulz]

It is a bit silly to say that there is one and only one exact biblical definition to any single English word, since the Bible was not written in English.

The Greek language is even more precise with one English word expressed by various Greek words that also have different nuances depending on the context. It is an exegetical fallacy to think all words have only one meaning.

 

[godrulz]

No. I think you are very good at communicating and I like the way you often quote scripture to make your points.

Our biggest disagreement (and I think you know this) is dispensationalism. To me it is so obvious and somehow you don't see it. This fundamental difference is the source of 10's if not hundreds areas that you and I disagree. Even with all of the changes I have been through in my Christian walk, I have always been dispensational. First, Acts 2 then Acts 9 after I read the Plot. I think I asked you this before and you said you had read it, but, have you read the Plot? Also, I am open theist. This would be another source of several disagreements regarding the nature of God. BTW, I'm not really interested in debateing these subjects too much because I don't have the time to devote to it. I have a great wife and 5 kids and I would rather spend the majority of my time with them and working to support them.

In Him,
CRASH

I am an Acts 2 dispensationalist, I suppose. I am also an Open Theist with a family. I have not finished "The Plot", but it is on the desk next to me. I appreciate your posts when you do make them.