ARCHIVE: Free From Sin - 1 John

[Poly]

Lighthouse, you haven't been dogmatic on this for very long. It seems as though you might have jumped on the wagon when you first heard Sozo arguing that a Christian can't sin, not really realizing just how far he was taking his arguments. You may have even finally realized that he may have been taking it too far but had already jumped the gun in agreeing with him quite a bit so you possibly hesitated to rethink or restate your position. Of course I can't know this for sure and I apologize if I'm wrong.

I just challenge you to make sure, in your heart of hearts and in your gutt, that you really feel confident that to defend something such as this, is really worth this kind of debate among Christians who happen to be so likeminded when you really get down to it.

 

[sentientsynth]

I agree with Knight. Even though the Lord doesn't hold our trangressions against us, we still "miss the mark" in a great many ways. If the Apostle Paul is going to call himself the "chief of sinners," then I'm going to find my spot right behind him and call myself a sinner. Yes. I'm still a sinner. But I'm not condemned. I was when I was alive. But now I'm dead in Christ, and when God looks at me, He sees Christ.

• For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man and I behold another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of the sin that [is] in my members. A wretched man I [am]! who shall deliver me out of this dying body? Thanks be to God, [He will deliver me] through Jesus Christ our Lord; so then, I myself indeed with the mind do serve the law of God, and with the flesh, the law of sin.

 

[koban]

I want to hear more about Sozo's "Christ removed all sin from all men for all time - but that doesn't mean what it says" theology. :think:

 

[elected4ever]

I want to hear more about Sozo's "Christ removed all sin from all men for all time - but that doesn't mean what it says" theology. :think:

Only those who say that God's children can sin are in the camp of the, "It don't mean what it says theology"

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Only those who say that God's children can sin are in the camp of the, "It don't mean what it says theology"

You mean like the apostle Paul?

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.

Ephesians 4:25 Therefore, putting away lying, “Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,” for we are members of one another. 26 “Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, 27 nor give place to the devil.

Romans 4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

1Corinthians 6:17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.

 

[godrulz]

Hence the name of the book... "Hebrews".

Hebrews was contextualized for Jewish Christians, just as Matthew was primarily to a Jewish audience, Mark to a Roman audience, Luke to a Greek audience, and John to believers. This does not mean there are 4 gospels messages. The Old Covenant is the foundation for the NT (reality). The books of the NT give us full biblical truth for the New Covenant. There is no need to propose a brief second gospel for a limited time between the resurrection and Paul's conversion.

 

[godrulz]

Good use of Scripture, Knight, that blatantly contradicts sinless perfectionism (there are a variety of heresies under this label).

 

[sentientsynth]

The Old Covenant is the foundation for the NT (reality).

Paul states that his gospel was hidden from before the foundation of the earth, the he was the first to whom the mystery was made known.

• Romans 16:25 ~
  And to Him who is able to establish you, according to my good news, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the secret, in the times of the ages having been kept silent
• Colossians 1:26 ~... the secret that hath been hid from the ages and from the generations, but now was manifested to his saints,
• Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

That's right. The mystery WAS NOT revealed to Peter. But Paul says to mark out every one that speaks against Paul's distinctive gospel. I believe that includes you, Godrulz.

 

[godrulz]

Ephesians 3:4-6 shows that the mystery (Jew and Gentile one in Christ) was not just revealed to Paul, but to God's holy apostleS and prophetS. Peter did have a Gentile revelation. Just because it was revealed to Paul does not mean the others did not have an understanding. The church was birthed in Acts 2 by the Spirit (fulfill promise that Christ would build His church- Mt. 16:18..rock of Peter's confession), not later at Paul's conversion.

 

[elected4ever]

You guyes mean to tell me that you do not know the differance i offending someone and opposing some one? Are you guys really that ignorunt?

 

[CRASH]

Ephesians 3:4-6 shows that the mystery (Jew and Gentile one in Christ) was not just revealed to Paul, but to God's holy apostleS and prophetS. Peter did have a Gentile revelation. Just because it was revealed to Paul does not mean the others did not have an understanding. The church was birthed in Acts 2 by the Spirit (fulfill promise that Christ would build His church- Mt. 16:18..rock of Peter's confession), not later at Paul's conversion.

What chapter are you in the Plot? You should save everyone a lot of time and finish it. Then deabte the subject if you still disagree!

 

[CRASH]

You guyes mean to tell me that you do not know the differance i offending someone and opposing some one? Are you guys really that ignorunt?

Repost that in a form that makes sense and check your spelling. Then people can respond.

 

[godrulz]

What chapter are you in the Plot? You should save everyone a lot of time and finish it. Then deabte the subject if you still disagree!

There are a variety of ultradispensation views. I debate JWs and Mormons without having read all of their literature. What I have read is not what it claims (Plot). It does not resolve all major doctrinal issues. It is right about some vs all things. Sound exegesis resolves doctrinal issues, not just a simplisitic template that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Otherwise, I agree with your suggestion.

 

[Jacob]

people sin

people sin

People sin, a mere title of Christian or son of Abraham will not do.

Sin is transgression of God's law.

Everything is evaluated by God, whether good or bad.

How can someone be blameless? The Bible has people that are blameless.

Also, the requirement of the Law is there. It cannot be avoided.

Shalom,

Jacob
Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 5:17-20; John 11:25; Romans 1:16-17

 

[CRASH]

There are a variety of ultradispensation views. I debate JWs and Mormons without having read all of their literature. What I have read is not what it claims (Plot). It does not resolve all major doctrinal issues. It is right about some vs all things. Sound exegesis resolves doctrinal issues, not just a simplisitic template that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Otherwise, I agree with your suggestion.

Finish it and get back to us with your comments.

 

[Lighthouse]

That is nothing more than doublespeak.

After all... you DO believe that Christians do things that are bad and wrong, correct?

Some Christians steal..., use profanity, and even worse!

You do believe that right?

Yet you think that when a Christian does these "bad things" they are no longer called "sins", big deal! A name change for bad behavior! What is the pay off? Christ still needs to cover the punishment for these "bad things" correct?

When Jesus hung on the cross it meant far more than a name change for bad behavior.

You are preaching a hollow, unnecessarily confusing inaccurate gospel message.

Well, I don't consider profanity to be a sin, anyway. But that's beside the point.

And it isn't about a name change for the behavior. It's about identity. The part of me that is Christian is in Christ, and in Him there is no sin. The part of me that sins is not in Christ, and is therefore not Christian. It is not righteous, and never will be. It has been crucified with Christ.

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse, you haven't been dogmatic on this for very long. It seems as though you might have jumped on the wagon when you first heard Sozo arguing that a Christian can't sin, not really realizing just how far he was taking his arguments. You may have even finally realized that he may have been taking it too far but had already jumped the gun in agreeing with him quite a bit so you possibly hesitated to rethink or restate your position. Of course I can't know this for sure and I apologize if I'm wrong.

I just challenge you to make sure, in your heart of hearts and in your gutt, that you really feel confident that to defend something such as this, is really worth this kind of debate among Christians who happen to be so likeminded when you really get down to it.

I did not jump on the bandwagon when I first heard Sozo arguing it.:nono: I believe I even got called a name or two by Sozo for arguing against him. But when I looked at the scriptures presented, in context, I finally understood what he was saying, and who I am. I am no longer who I once was [without Christ]. I am His now. And I do not identify myself with sin. "It is no longer I who do it..." Paul said this because the sin is no longer who he is. And the same goes for those of us who are in Christ. That is no longer who we are. We are identified wiht Christ, in whom there is no sin. We are free from sin. We are dead to sin. There is no more law for us. Christ was the end of the law for righteousness. And do you honestly believe one who is righteous can commit an unrightoeus act?

 

[Spitfire]

The part of me that is Christian is in Christ, and in Him there is no sin. The part of me that sins is not in Christ, and is therefore not Christian. It is not righteous, and never will be. It has been crucified with Christ.

So.......... when you die, do you think God is going to saw you in half and only let the part of you that doesn't sin into Heaven?

 

[Lighthouse]

People sin, a mere title of Christian or son of Abraham will not do.

Sin is transgression of God's law.

Everything is evaluated by God, whether good or bad.

How can someone be blameless? The Bible has people that are blameless.

Also, the requirement of the Law is there. It cannot be avoided.

Shalom,

Jacob
Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 5:17-20; John 11:25; Romans 1:16-17

Sin is transgression of the law, and Christians are not under the law, and where there is no law there is no transgression.

 

[godrulz]

Well, I don't consider profanity to be a sin, anyway. But that's beside the point.

And it isn't about a name change for the behavior. It's about identity. The part of me that is Christian is in Christ, and in Him there is no sin. The part of me that sins is not in Christ, and is therefore not Christian. It is not righteous, and never will be. It has been crucified with Christ.

You cannot artificially dissect the whole man who is spirit, soul, body. It is possible to be a saint, in Christ, and yet sin with the will. This does not change your status and make you a godless sinner. It makes you one who is set apart in Christ, but who has lapsed and misused our will and freedom. We do not have two wills. The 'flesh' is not a person. We can yield to the Spirit/spirit or the flesh in any given choice. One choice does not change our status or destiny. If there is a nebulous part in you that sins, you are not responsible/accountable. The many exhortations and commands in the NT become hollow. We can exercise our will to use our body for righteousness or evil. If you put your genitals where they do not belong, it is an act of the will. YOU are the one responsible since you did it. You cannot say part of you is a Christian and another part is not a Christian?! This makes no sense. We are a whole person, not a multiple personality/possessed shell.

Sin is selfishness. We are called to love and obey, but this involves choices. Paul recognized that some who were saints, did disobey and sin in some areas (Corinthians and Clete's verses). Sin is not a substance/thing or just a nature. This is leading to your confusion and wrong conclusions.