ARCHIVE: Free From Sin - 1 John

[elected4ever]

I don't disagree with any of that nor do I find it relevant to the discussion.

be careful , your ignorants is showing.

[Knight]

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.

That's all well and good but I prefer to trust the Bible and God's word and how He phrased things. Your opinion is at odds with the Bible.

[Knight]

be careful , your ignorants is showing.

my "ignorants"?

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

[Poly]

my "ignorants"?

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

[godrulz]

Sozo... and Lighthouse believe that a Christian cannot sin. Period.

They would say that if a Christian commits adultery or murder or rape they did NOT sin.

That is the issue of this thread.

Do you agree with them?

Go Knight Go...

Christians are saints, not sinners (I Corinthians), but this does not preclude the possibility of a Christian volitionally sinning, a temporary lapse that does not return one to the status of a godless sinner. If sin is a substance, I can see their objection to saying that a Christian does not sin. If sin involves disobedience/rebellion/selfishness/lawlessness/choice, then a Christian can commit adultery in the same way they did in a pre-conversion state or the way an unbeliever does. God's holiness and Law are not negated just because we are in Christ. There is a difference between will not sin (the normative Christian experience due to His power in us) and cannot sin (we are not robots...we should not sin, but if we do, we have an advocate...I Jn. 1:9; 2:1,2; Heb. 4:14-16).

[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

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]

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.
2. That sin is paid for by Christ.
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.

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?

[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?