ARCHIVE: The Apostle Pauls affirms that a Christian can sin.

Poly said:

Sozo, has there ever been a time when one who believed in Christ could sin or has it always been that a follower of Christ cannot sin?

Click to expand...

There has never been a time when one who is born of the Spirit could sin.

Many believed in Jesus before the cross.

Sozo said:

Many believed in Jesus before the cross.

Click to expand...

So are you saying these that believed before the Cross could sin?

Poly said:

So are you saying these that believed before the Cross could sin?

Click to expand...

Technically, before Jesus was glorified, and man was given the Spirit through faith. The cross and resurrection is what made that possible.

elected4ever said:

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 ¶And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

:idunno:

Paul or Knight?
Paul or Knight???

:idunno:

Click to expand...

That would be a great come back if I have stated any to the contrary of what Paul was saying. :rotfl:

You can equivocate all you like but Paul used the word sin as a verb in relation to Christians. When you get to heaven you can correct him.

Knight said:

When you do sinful things you will reap the consequences.

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.

In other words...
If you steal.... your sin is covered. But you will still feel guilt and most likely get arrested. Know what I mean?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what you mean, and that's what I thought you'd say, but I'm not sure I agree.

Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For whatever a man may sow, that he also will reap.
Gal 6:8 For the one sowing to his flesh will reap corruption of the flesh. But the one sowing to the Spirit will reap everlasting life from the Spirit.

I think there may be more to that than just earthly consequences.....:think:

Sozo said:

Now you're either being dishonest, or you're being a jerk.

Paul NEVER said that our sins are covered. Paul is quoting David for the very reasons I said.

Click to expand...

Paul said what he said. It doesn't matter that he may or may not have been quoting David, he meant what he said and was making a point that is made over and over in the Bible. Paul didn't equivocate, like you are. Paul understood the various usages of the word sin.

kmoney said:

I think there may be more to that than just earthly consequences.....:think:

Click to expand...

Good point, and I agree.

I think can mess up some of the glory and rewards waiting for us in heaven when we sin.

1Corinthians 3:14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Knight said:

Paul said what he said. It doesn't matter that he may or may not have been quoting David, he meant what he said and was making a point that is made over and over in the Bible. Paul didn't equivocate, like you are. Paul understood the various usages of the word sin.

Click to expand...

For somone who proclaims to believe in rightly dividing, you fail to do so when it favors your own personal view.

Jesus did not cover sin. Jesus took sin away. It was a propitiation, not an atonement. Paul teaches that we are free from sin, not that it is covered up.

John 1:29

"The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

Hebrews 10:1-4

"For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Knight said:

Good point, and I agree.

I think can mess up some of the glory and rewards waiting for us in heaven when we sin.

1Corinthians 3:14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Click to expand...

You're a closet legalist, aren't you?

I had no idea, until now.

That verse has nothing to do with sin in any way. It's talking about the lost being saved by how we build upon the foundation.

Those who add to the gospel of Jesus with a message of works righteousness will suffer loss, because there will be no fruit for their labor.

This is just plain sad. :sigh:

Knight said:

Good point, and I agree.

I think can mess up some of the glory and rewards waiting for us in heaven when we sin.

Click to expand...

btw... Apparently, you think God does count your sin, and that it is not even "covered", as you suggested.

Sozo said:

btw... Apparently, you think God does count your sin, and that it is not even "covered", as you suggested.

Click to expand...

Apparently, sin is not sin unless it fits what knight says is sin. I am really having a problem with his view of sin. It is pretty hard to discuss anything with him because the target keeps moving. I have found that true with most people who call themselves Christians. It is as if it is sanctimoneous to believe that God has done what He said that He did. It is ether total confusion or total unbelief. I just don't know what to make of it but I am deeply troubled because I really do love these guys. Even godrulz.

Sozo said:

You're a closet legalist, aren't you?

Click to expand...

Sozo, you can call me whatever you like. It really doesn't bother me. I understand that people will have differences in opinion (heck that's what TOL is all about). I do feel a bit sorry for you. You live in a world where anyone who disagrees with you is a "Satanist", or a "faggot" or a "closet legalist". I don't feel compelled to demonize my fellow brothers in Christ like you do, I think it's OK to have discussion and even disagreements. Come now, and let us reason together.

Anyway... I think I have said all I can say on this issue and I am sure those reading can make up their own minds as to who has made the most compelling arguments. If you wish to continue further (especially in our One on One) that's fine as well.

elected4ever said:

Apparently, sin is not sin unless it fits what knight says is sin. I am really having a problem with his view of sin. It is pretty hard to discuss anything with him because the target keeps moving. I have found that true with most people who call themselves Christians. It is as if it is sanctimoneous to believe that God has done what He said that He did. It is ether total confusion or total unbelief. I just don't know what to make of it but I am deeply troubled because I really do love these guys. Even godrulz.

Click to expand...

I use the word sin they way it used in the Bible.

Believe it or not, I knew the above post was coming next.

I just caught you in a contradiction, and so I expected you to take this road.

I will probably continue to answer your remaining questions in the One on One, but I am disappointed that you went the way you did in this thread. You reaped what you sowed, but you did not sin.

I call people what they are, based solely on what they say, not just to be calling people names.

godrulz is an anti-Christ, Satan worshipper. It's not because I don't like him that I say that. It's because it is the truth. Paul and Jesus used similar terms to define those who are enemies of the gospel. It's not personal.

You have been mocking me, e4e, and Lighthouse for teaching that Christians do not sin. You have repeatedly stated that we do sin, it's just that the sin is "covered" and that it is not "imputed" to us when we do.

But, then you say that sin can bring about consequences from God in the next life, which goes against the statements that it is not imputed. Do you also believe that sin has consequences in this life from God? Is God counting our sins against us or not?

I don't want to be at odds with you, or any of my other friends on this site, but simply repeating the same verses over and over, after they have been addressed honestly, reminds me of trying to discuss things with Freak. It's not productive.

Knight said:

No disagreement here. Yet Fred still has the capability of stealing the iPod, and we use the verb sin to describe that type of behavior.

Fred is giving into the flesh, by stealing the iPod. Fred is sinning, thankfully Fred's sin will be covered!

Romans 4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

Click to expand...

Romans 4:7 is talking about initial justification, not subsequent lapses. Our past sins are not counted against us. This does not mean that God is blind to our future sins and winks at them as we fall into them again. It should not be extrapolated as unconditional forgiveness while persisting in sin in the future. There is provision for future sin, but the forgiveness of non-existent sins does not make sense (you are an Open Theist who should know a specific sin may or may not come to pass).

Knight said:

Sozo, you can call me whatever you like. It really doesn't bother me. I understand that people will have differences in opinion (heck that's what TOL is all about). I do feel a bit sorry for you. You live in a world where anyone who disagrees with you is a "Satanist", or a "faggot" or a "closet legalist". I don't feel compelled to demonize my fellow brothers in Christ like you do, I think it's OK to have discussion and even disagreements. Come now, and let us reason together.

Anyway... I think I have said all I can say on this issue and I am sure those reading can make up their own minds as to who has made the most compelling arguments. If you wish to continue further (especially in our One on One) that's fine as well.

Click to expand...

Another reason Knight has more credibility and character than sozo. One is to be commended. The other is to be condemned as immature.

1] Sozo knows what I meant.

2] e4e is not rally helping our case here.

3] Nobody really cares what you think godrulz, since you deny that sin is not imputed to us.

4] If God does not count it as sin, why do we call it sin?

Lighthouse said:

1] Sozo knows what I meant.

2] e4e is not rally helping our case here.

3] Nobody really cares what you think godrulz, since you deny that sin is not imputed to us.

4] If God does not count it as sin, why do we call it sin?

Click to expand...

There are a variety of views about what imputation is and is not. It is not clear what you believe (to me at least). The context of Romans 4 is initial justification. God does not count or impute our sins against us when we receive Christ. Our past sins are forgiven and we are justified...i.e. we are legally treated just as if we never sinned. He does not 'forget' our sins since He is omniscient. He choses to not bring them up again or hold them against us because of the substitute for the penalty of sin by the Lamb of God.

I do not deny that sin is not imputed to us (see above). What I deny is that a believer can persist in what the Bible calls sin and presume on the grace of God. To say that God does not see the Christian teen fornicating or the Christian pastor giving in to homosexual temptation or adultery is not the picture in the OT nor the NT. Our setting apart as holy needs to be fleshed out in actual purity, not continued sin presuming on the idea that all sins are automatically forgiven even while blatantly persisted in. This would compromise God's holiness and unchanging moral law. There is PROVISION for past, present, and future sin, but it is not automatic unless you are a universalist or antinomian. Rom. 4 deals with conversion. I Jn. 1:9 deals with subsequent lapses...IF...then conditional...

I owe Knight, and TOL, a huge apology for my previous few posts directed at him.

I should use his first name here, because I honestly consider him to be a close friend and a teammate in presenting the Hope that is in us, to a lost and reckless world.

He is a devout, selfless, family man who loves his wife and children, and puts their interests and the interests of others over his own.

I should never have spoken to him the way I did, and for that I apologize publically.

I did not want this debate to be personal, but an honest look into an important issue that I believe both sides should take seriously. It matters a great deal to me, and I know that it is an essential element in understanding the gospel, and how it is proclaimed. Words have deep meaning to God, and they should to us, as well.

In any case, I don't want this discussion to deteriorate into accusations about motives or character. So, I'm hoping that Knight will forgive me for having done that, and that others will not hold that offense against me.

I'm impressed. I appreciate the humility to strengthen relationships, even publicly.

Has Mrs. Sozo got your keyboard access again?

Forgiveness restores fellowship and intimacy. When I suggest that we deal with offenses after initial justification, I do not see why that is perceived as a negation of the work of Christ. If all future sins are automatically forgiven even while persisted in, how does one mend the relationship that is breached, apart from a change of attitude and behavior getting things back on track? When we do this with God (Ps. 32; 51; I Jn. 1:9; Eph....forgive as He forgives), it does not mean that we were not saved or need to get saved again. A breach of intimacy in marriage, family, work, relationship with God is restored with a biblical pattern. This is not the same as saying the relationship is severed with one wrong.

If Knight can forgive, why can't God forgive anew, even after initial forgiveness as issues come up?