"OSAS" people are not answering this question.

[elohiym]

I'm not an occasional sinner. I sin all the time.

I believe you, but you may as well be shouting you are lost and nobody should trust a word you say.

Unless its unintentional (not completely, utterly, absolutely freely chosen), in any way.

There are no unintentional sins. What laws do you imagine you are transgressing unintentionally?

 

[meshak]

I believe you, but you may as well be shouting you are lost and nobody should trust a word you say.

On the contrary, he will be exalted by Jesus for his humility.

His followers should not exalt themselves.

Jesus does not approve of self-righteous ones.

 

[elohiym]

All grace not to sin comes from God but our receiving that grace depends on the faith we put in Him.

Then you don't receive it sometimes because you still sin sometimes, but you're just giving lip service to God and fully rejected grace in favor of legalism.

Our submission to Him and faith IN Him is ongoing. If our faith in Him fails we cannot say as you have implied here - that God has somehow failed us.

That's not what I've implied. Rather, you have to believe how God made you incapable of sinning in Christ. You don't believe THAT, so you continue to sin "occassionally." But all you are doing is bragging that you are a better law keeper than Dan E while you are actually still dead in your sins like him.

This assumption - that God irresistibly causes us not to sin is a quasi-Calvinist assumption but scripture affirms that both sin is a choice. All human beings have a will. You do not lose it when you are saved. We will always be able to choose to either believe in and depend on Him or to doubt and yield to temptation.

Then Hebrews 10:26-29 is your fate because you are occassionally wilfully disobedient.

In Romans 6:12-14 Paul instructed believers they they had to make certain choices.

"do not let sin reign" in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts

do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness

He was writing to believers of both Gentile and Jewish decent. He does not assume that the Holy Spirit will accomplish these things by a unilateral act of divine power without them and if they had a part to play there was a possibility that they would at some point not cooperate.

Paul taught Galatians 2:20, which you clearly do not understand. He wrote, "Awake to righteousness and sin not!" You're totally asleep and completely oblivious to that fact.

We have not been perfected yet. I showed you scriptures that state this. Even the Apostle Paul admitted he was not perfected. We will be perfect only on the day when our last tie to the First Adam (our physical body) either dies or is transformed. Until then we have to discipline our flesh and direct our minds.

I showed the context of those scripture was the resurrection from the grave, not our resurrection in Christ. Some were teaching the resurrection from the dead already happened. Don't ignore that I already explained this. Don't ignore that GT already provided the scriptures that prove believers are perfect and why.

All the Apostle's letters to the Churches contain rebukes for sins being committed, exhortations to them to avoid sins, and sometimes warnings about the consequences of falling into a pattern of sinning and turning from Christ. All those indicate that the believers then did not live a lives of practical sinless perfectionism.

You have to be extremely dense to not realize that the Apostle's were claiming the same things I am to people just like you. The "lifestyle of sin" is what you are living right now, but you are delusional and can't see.

One reason people who believe OSAS do not accept conditional security is that they listen to this kind of stuff and get the idea you have to be perfect every moment of time in order to remain in salvation. When you make sinless perfectionism the condition for salvation you leave people in a state of eternal INsecurity. To every ditch on one side of the road there is another ditch on the opposite side.

You don't understand my position and keep making false assumptions. How long will it take before you realize that you are completely misrepresenting what I believe? A straw man is all you have.

 

[elohiym]

On the contrary, he will be exalted by Jesus for his humility.

It is bragging to proclaim he sins all the time, not humility.

The wicked will perish, as Jesus taught.

 

[elohiym]

What I have been saying comes from the principles embedded in the the language of the scriptures not from any presuppositions of mine. You are imposing on the text ideas from English that are not there

I've studied this with people who can read Greek. My interpretation is sound.

Your interpretation contradicts the point you already conceded in the argument but you are too delusional to see it.

Sin requires hatred for another. If you hate another and claim to love God you are a liar. If you hate another, you are a murderer and eternal life doesn't abide in you.

You will never get around those principles, and you are already dead trying.

 

[meshak]

It is bragging to proclaim he sins all the time, not humility.

He is not bragging about his sin. He is only being honest because no one is perfect.

You still not answering my question.

Are you claiming to be perfect?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You still not answering my question.

You don't answer anybodies questions?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I've studied this with people who can read Greek. My interpretation is sound.

Your interpretation contradicts the point you already conceded in the argument but you are too delusional to see it.

Sin requires hatred for another. If you hate another and claim to love God you are a liar. If you hate another, you are a murderer and eternal life doesn't abide in you.

You will never get around those principles, and you are already dead trying.

You don't realize we're living in the "Dispensation of Grace."

 

[God's Truth]

All grace not to sin comes from God but our receiving that grace depends on the faith we put in Him. Our submission to Him and faith IN Him is ongoing. If our faith in Him fails we cannot say as you have implied here - that God has somehow failed us. This assumption - that God irresistibly causes us not to sin is a quasi-Calvinist assumption but scripture affirms that both sin is a choice. and that all human beings have a will that makes it possible for them to choose. You do not lose your will when you are saved. We will always be able to choose whether we will believe in and depend upon Him or whether we will doubt Him and yield to temptation.

In Romans 6:12-14 Paul instructed believers they they had to make certain choices.

"do not let sin reign" in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts

do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness

He was writing to believers of both Gentile and Jewish decent. He does not assume that the Holy Spirit will accomplish these things by a unilateral act of divine power They had a part to play there was a possibility that they would at some point choose not to "yield their members."

We have not been perfected yet.

We have been perfected. You went against a lot of scriptures to say that.

I showed you scriptures that state this. Even the Apostle Paul admitted he was not perfected. We will be perfect only on the day when our last tie to the First Adam (our physical body) either dies or is transformed. Until then we have to discipline our flesh and direct our minds.

We are made perfect and holy by Jesus' blood, and now we are to live up to that.

Humble Paul was just saying he is not infallible and that he would live in obedience until the end has come.

All the Apostle's letters to the Churches contain rebukes for sins being committed, exhortations to them to avoid sins, and sometimes warnings about the consequences of falling into a pattern of sinning and turning from Christ. All those indicate that the believers then did not live a lives of practical sinless perfectionism.

One reason people who believe OSAS do not accept conditional security is that they listen to this kind of stuff and get the idea you have to be perfect every moment of time in order to remain in salvation. When you make sinless perfectionism the condition for salvation you leave people in a state of eternal INsecurity. To every ditch on one side of the road there is another ditch on the opposite side.

Do you know what it is like to have the Holy Spirit living inside your heart?

 

[God's Truth]

He is not bragging about his sin. He is only being honest because no one is perfect.

You still not answering my question.

Are you claiming to be perfect?

He is bragging about being a sinner and so are you. We are not to sin anymore, and we are not to consider ourselves sinners. We are to brag about obeying.

Once a person humbles themselves and admits to God through Jesus they they have sinned and are sorry for those sins, then God exalts them.

After repenting of your sins you are to stop doing them and then are exalted to the place where Christ is.

Colossians 3:1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

 

[Shasta]

Then you don't receive it sometimes because you still sin sometimes, but you're just giving lip service to God and fully rejected grace in favor of legalism.



That's not what I've implied. Rather, you have to believe how God made you incapable of sinning in Christ. You don't believe THAT, so you continue to sin "occassionally." But all you are doing is bragging that you are a better law keeper than Dan E while you are actually still dead in your sins like him.



Then Hebrews 10:26-29 is your fate because you are occassionally wilfully disobedient.



Paul taught Galatians 2:20, which you clearly do not understand. He wrote, "Awake to righteousness and sin not!" You're totally asleep and completely oblivious to that fact.



I showed the context of those scripture was the resurrection from the grave, not our resurrection in Christ. Some were teaching the resurrection from the dead already happened. Don't ignore that I already explained this. Don't ignore that GT already provided the scriptures that prove believers are perfect and why.



You have to be extremely dense to not realize that the Apostle's were claiming the same things I am to people just like you. The "lifestyle of sin" is what you are living right now, but you are delusional and can't see.



You don't understand my position and keep making false assumptions. How long will it take before you realize that you are completely misrepresenting what I believe? A straw man is all you have.

I have proven my points already using the language in which the scriptures were written You have chosen to believe that the scriptures do not differentiate between living a lifestyle of sin and having occasional sins. My view is based on scholarship, and what is commonly known to students of the original language. Rather than answer on those grounds you began personal attacks. First you say I am dense because, I suppose, I have not properly understood your idiosyncratic views. Well it's ok to have novel views but the burden of explaining them is on you not everyone else.

The strange thing is that, after implying that I am a moral compromiser you now accuse me of being a legalist. Well, those accusations are aimed at two opposite poles. At any rate, whether I am the one or the other does nothing to support your thesis but is simply an ad hominem attack.

 

[Shasta]

We have been perfected. You went against a lot of scriptures to say that.

We are made perfect and holy by Jesus' blood, and now we are to live up to that.

Humble Paul was just saying he is not infallible and that he would live in obedience until the end has come.

Do you know what it is like to have the Holy Spirit living inside your heart?

The Holy Spirit lives in me an guides me. I do not know what good it does to say things like that because around here if you do not agree with someone 100% they seem to think you are lead by the Spirit of Antichrist. Whatever you say is used in the ongoing ad hominem wars with all sides seating themselves on mini-white thrones and lobbing invectives.

When you say a person is not "infallible" it means that they are fallible. When people are said to be fallible it could mean they made a factual or physical error. They forgot to do something. However, sin is not fallibility. "Missing the mark" is any act of the will that does not conform to the Image of Christ since, after all, HE is THE MARK, the template, the embodiment of God's mind from which all Right comes. God is Love. The Son who is in His express image is also love. To the extent are not motivated by love we will always miss the mark. Furthermore we cannot meet the standard in ourselves. Only the Spirit working in us can produce Christ-likeness. Only the Vine can produce through us the fruit of His character.

I could know all mysteries and have perfectly correct doctrines and be a bitter person. This is how some people in history after having a true encounter with God, later in life take on a horrible attitudes. I am thinking about Martin Luther here. You have to keep weeding or the character of the Old Creation can try and re-assert itself. Being determined not to sin is a good thing. Thinking we cannot sin leaves us vulnerable to a sneak attack by pride (the root of all sin). Knowing we are vulnerable makes us dependent on Him.

The scriptures I have already covered show how the Apostles sinned, how they had to deal with sin in the Church. Paul specifically said he had not attained personal perfection. When asked if he was perfect George Fox said this, "Christ has taken away my sin and in Him there is no sin." That is almost a satisfactory answer for me. I would add, "and when the Hole Spirit shows me I have sinned, I acknowledge (confess) it and it is taken away." That agrees what what the letter of John says.

 

[God's Truth]

The Holy Spirit lives in me an guides me. I do not know what good it does to say things like that because around here if you do not agree with someone 100% they seem to think you are lead by the Spirit of Antichrist. Whatever you say is used in the ongoing ad hominem wars with all sides seating themselves on mini-white thrones and lobbing invectives.

Those in Christ are seated with him. See Ephesians 2:6.

When you say a person is not "infallible" it means that they are fallible. When people are said to be fallible it could mean they made a factual or physical error.

You are not speaking about what Paul said are you?

They forgot to do something. However, sin is not fallibility.

What do you mean sin is not fallibility? Falling is sin.

"Missing the mark" is any act of the will that does not conform to the Image of Christ since, after all, HE is THE MARK, the template, the embodiment of God's mind from which all Right comes. God is Love. The Son who is in His express image is also love. To the extent are not motivated by love we will always miss the mark. Furthermore we cannot meet the standard in ourselves. Only the Spirit working in us can produce Christ-likeness. Only the Vine can produce through us the fruit of His character.

What you say does not make sense. It is confusion. Confusion does not come from God.
God is the Spirit and He works in us to want to obey Him. We still have to do the work of obeying.

I could know all mysteries and have perfectly correct doctrines and be a bitter person.

That would be because you were saved but then fell away, for having love is being saved, and we can only do that by obeying.

This is how some people in history after having a true encounter with God, later in life take on a horrible attitudes. I am thinking about Martin Luther here. You have to keep weeding or the character of the Old Creation can try and re-assert itself. Being determined not to sin is a good thing. Thinking we cannot sin leaves us vulnerable to a sneak attack by pride (the root of all sin). Knowing we are vulnerable makes us dependent on Him.

We have to be strong and watch ourselves.
As for Martin Luther, he did not have all the truth. He believed falsely that we cannot obey until we are saved. That falseness comes from the false teachers that Luther and Calvin, the Catholic priests studied from. Luther also believed in infant baptism and real blood in the wine and real flesh in the bread.

The scriptures I have already covered show how the Apostles sinned, how they had to deal with sin in the Church.

I do not know what scriptures you are referring to.

Paul specifically said he had not attained personal perfection.

Paul was humble and was letting us know that it was not over yet.

When asked if he was perfect George Fox said this, "Christ has taken away my sin and in Him there is no sin." That is almost a satisfactory answer for me. I would add, "and when the Hole Spirit shows me I have sinned, I acknowledge (confess) it and it is taken away." That agrees what what the letter of John says.

I do not care what other men say. I do not know George Fox. Jesus made us perfect and holy; and we are to live up to that. If a Christian does sin, he is to confess it and repent of it. I am not going to live my life seeing myself as a sinner, as the others here do. I am not going to say I live my life sinning all the time, as many here say, because I do not live my life sinning.

 

[elohiym]

That John is speaking of an ongoing practice of sin not about occasional isolated sins is confirmed in these translations. They got the idea from the meaning of the Greek present tense verbs which I have been alluding to.

You added the word "ongoing" and the false distinction between what you subjectively classify as "occasional isolated sins." How many times can you commit adultery between now and the day you're a corpse before it becomes a practice or habit? Some people claim there are over 600 laws in the Bible, but even if you broke every one of them once that wouldn't take your whole life and you should eventually be free from sin by your standard.

The linear present refers to an action that is ongoing, continuous or habitual.

Because sin requires a state of mind, the "lifestyle." The carnal mind, the mind of the old man, the one who sins, is ongoing, continuous and habitual unless he is crucified and a person is raised to life in Christ. The mind of Christ cannot sin. Which mind do you have? You can't be double-minded, right?

What I have been saying comes from the principles embedded in the the language of the scriptures not from any presuppositions of mine. You are imposing on the text ideas from English that are not there

You are mistaken. What I believe is consistent with "the principle embedded in the language of the scriptures." You have contradicted a lot of scripture on this thread and you are blaspheming God.

Stop being dense about the point you conceded and see how it irrefutably proves that a person born of God cannot sin. A person who sins necessarily hates another, is a murderer, doesn't have eternal life and can't possibly love God. You claim that person could be a believer, saved.

The epistles show that elders were trying to get people to stop sinning, and they connected conversion, which is salvation, to ceasing from sin, to awakening to righteousness. You twist their epistles to mean believers are capable of sin, as if they thought everyone they were addressing believed the gospel.

 

[Shasta]

I've studied this with people who can read Greek. My interpretation is sound.

Your interpretation contradicts the point you already conceded in the argument but you are too delusional to see it.

Sin requires hatred for another. If you hate another and claim to love God you are a liar. If you hate another, you are a murderer and eternal life doesn't abide in you.

You will never get around those principles, and you are already dead trying.

I have not altered my views. What concession are you talking about.

Delusional? The view I cited was that of one of the foremost scholars in the world, A. T. Robertson. I also demonstrated how the translators of other versions agree with this same opinion. This must be a joint-delusion on a grand scale.

As to these "sources" of yours none of us knows who these private Greek consultants are. Even if they do have a degree of knowledge about Greek are they on par with such world-class scholars as Robertson or with the teams of Biblical scholars that put together those translations I cited. Is all of that data part of my delusion as well? Unlike your sources mine can be read by anyone simply by following the link I provided. You are apparently not a student of the language yourself, but seek secondary advice from people whose expertise we have no evidence of. That is pretty weak.

Sin requires hatred for another. If you hate another and claim to love God you are a liar. If you hate another, you are a murderer and eternal life doesn't abide in you.

Out of what book did you get the statement that "sin requires hatred for another" The Bible lists many kinds of sin some of which do not necessarily involve hating someone. Your formulation is an over-simplification yet is treated as dogma. Mmm...does your claim to sinlessness rest solely on the fact that you have avoided hating anyone?

 

[God's Truth]

I have not altered my views. What concession are you talking about.

Delusional? The view I cited was that of one of the foremost scholars in the world, A. T. Robertson. I also demonstrated how the translators of other versions agree with this same opinion. This must be a joint-delusion on a grand scale.

As to these "sources" of yours none of us knows who these private Greek consultants are. Even if they do have a degree of knowledge about Greek are they on par with such world-class scholars as Robertson or with the teams of Biblical scholars that put together those translations I cited. Is all of that data part of my delusion as well? Unlike your sources mine can be read by anyone simply by following the link I provided. You are apparently not a student of the language yourself, but seek secondary advice from people whose expertise we have no evidence of. That is pretty weak.

Who needs another book to know God's Truth?

Who cares about those teachers when we have God's written Word?

Out of what book did you get the statement that "sin requires hatred for another" The Bible lists many kinds of sin some of which do not necessarily involve hating someone. Your formulation is an over-simplification yet is treated as dogma. Mmm...does your claim to sinlessness rest solely on the fact that you have avoided hating anyone?

All sin is about hate.

 

[Shasta]

Who needs another book to know God's Truth?

Who cares about those teachers when we have God's written Word?



All sin is about hate.

The statement was all sin is about hate of another. Where is that to be found in scripture? It just not strike me as true. Two partners in crime might actually "love" each other, in a human sense. It need not that their common sin (which might be living with each other) is about hate. It is too simplistic.

Jesus dealt with various sins, one of the worst being calling someone "raca" The sin underlying that word was one of contempt which is an all-consuming sin that puts a person in danger of hellfire. Calling people names is bad but does not rise (or sink) to the level of contempt which is equivalent to hate.

Inasfar as books help you to understand the true sense of what was said in the original text of scripture they are helpful to read. Otherwise you will have to take the word of translators. It is not the translations that are inspired after all. I am not into reading commentaries unless they are exegetical commentaries. We all need some way to verify that are views are correct. It is the reason God put teachers in the Church too.

 

[God's Truth]

The statement was all sin is about hate of another. Where is that to be found in scripture?

Everything in the Bible is a teaching about love. Do you believe that?

It just not strike me as true.

The Royal Law of love your neighbor as yourself shows us that it is true. However, if someone lies it could be because they fear punishment; but when a person does wrong to another, and even to themselves, it is from a lack of love.

Two partners in crime might actually "love" each other, in a human sense. It need not that their common sin (which might be living with each other) is about hate. It is too simplistic.

They do not love each other enough to marry each other.

Jesus dealt with various sins, one of the worst being calling someone "raca" The sin underlying that word was one of contempt which is an all-consuming sin that puts a person in danger of hellfire. Calling people names is bad but does not rise (or sink) to the level of contempt which is equivalent to hate.

If you are calling someone a name and they are indeed guilty, then
it is not a sin. If you are calling someone a name and they are not guilty, then it is hateful.

Inasfar as books help you to understand the true sense of what was said in the original text of scripture they are helpful to read. Otherwise you will have to take the word of translators. It is not the translations that are inspired after all. I am not into reading commentaries unless they are exegetical commentaries. We all need some way to verify that are views are correct. It is the reason God put teachers in the Church too.

It could be very helpful to read what someone else writes about God's Truth, but we get understanding by obeying God. See John 14:21, John 7:17, and John 8:32. You speak about reading books to understand what someone writes, why is that helpful?

 

[Shasta]

Hebrews 10:26-29 is still true. You are arguing against that idea, believing if you sin wilfully the blood of Christ will continually cleanse you. The scriptures state the lost never knew the Lord. You are arguing it is possible for the lost to have known the Lord.



The definition of free will relevant to the discussion is the ability of a person to make choices free from prior causes or divine intervention. Based on that definition found in your dictionary, free will doesn't exist. You can be convinced of something and believe it, then your choices will be dictated by your beliefs. The carnal mind cannot serve the law of God; it's not possible.

It is written, "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

I don't hold to sinless perfection, just the image of Christ being sinless and perfect. You either think you are able to "grow into the image of Christ" without completely ceasing from sin, or think nobody has ever grown into the image of Christ. It's seems you only use "grow into the image of Christ" as a cliché.

There is another way to read 1 John 2:1 that doesn't contradict 1 John 4:20 and other verses in the same letter, and doesn't necessitate creating foolish ideas like a "lifestyle of sin."

Then you shouldn't be arguing with me and claiming a believer can sin occasionally.


You are just reading "lifestyle of sin" into the passage, but the idea contradicts the point above you conceded. The grammar can support what I believe, too, and without contradicting other ideas in the same epistle and other books.

So you think all our choices are determined either by God or our own prior choices. This is nothing else than absolute universal causal determinism which is a doctrine Calvin and Luther got from Augustine of Hippo. Augustine in turn smuggled it in from Manichaeism, the Gnostic cult to which he belonged before he converted to Christianity. In the 350 years before Augustine the Apologist and theologians of Early Christianity were universal in their denial of this doctrine which they considered Pagan, Gnostic and anti-Biblical. I might add that your view has a lot in common with Atheistic determinism which also denies freewill by making all motions of the brain part of a causal chain of material events. This belief, Theistic or Atheistic, degrades man and makes a mockery of moral responsibility.

No, I do not hold to universal causal determinism or to sinless perfection. Yes, I believe a person progressively grows towards perfection but really all that matters is what the scripture says and it says the following: 2 Corinthians 3:18. When we see Him as He is the work will be completed instantaneously...but I have not seen Him face to face yet, have you?

Here is a lesson in Greek. Discuss it with your consultants if you wish.

The present tense in English ordinarily denotes action occurring in the present TIME In addition to TIME, Greek verbs often contain information about HOW an action takes place (called, ASPECT), that is, whether an action simply happens or whether it happens, for instance, in a progressive, ongoing manner. You seem to think I have made up what I said about lifestyle. This is not true as I will show you.

the Present tense, of which John makes use here, doesn't focus on instances of events, but rather gives the sense of general continuity of which perhaps in English is best understood in the term "lifestyle"…Just as the Greek Present tense, the term "lifestyle" is not open to boundary questions. It is not open to ask the question as to what is the boundary condition which distinguishes let's say a behavior or attitude as being or not being the lifestyle of a person or character quality of the person. How much should a person display a certain behavior or attitude until we can say that such is characteristic of his lifestyle? The term "lifestyle" by its very nature does not answer that question, just as the Greek present tense doesn't answer boundary questions. It's not about boundary issues. Nor does the term "lifestyle" deny that a person may (in the "aorist" sense) deviate from such a lifestyle from time to time, just as the Greek Present tense doesn't deny there being instances of deviation.

With this in mind 1John 3:9 reads more literally that "No one who has been born (perfect passive) of God practices (present) sin as his lifestyle because His seed abides in him; and he cannot live a lifestyle of sin, because he has been born of God."

http://www.bcbsr.com/books/1jn3_9.html

You have suggested this is my personal delusion but a considerable number of scholars in the field besides A. T. Robertson believe that the present tense in First John should be understood to mean ongoing habitual action

1John 3:9

English Standard Version
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

Berean Study Bible
Anyone born of God refuses to practice sin, because God's seed abides in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

Berean Literal Bible
Anyone having been born of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him, and he is not able to continue sinning, because he has been born of God.

New American Standard Bible
No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

New International Version
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

New Living Translation
Those who have been born into God's family do not make a practice of sinning, because God's life is in them. So they can't keep on sinning, because they are children of God.

Do you think all these teams of translators are part of some vast conspiracy?

 

[Shasta]

My goodness, they can't even come close to agreeing among themselves. This is what happens when people are so obsessed with sin and the law. They either claim they are keeping the law perfectly or they claim they are keeping it as best they can and keep "repenting" when they fail.

On the left side of the CROSS, there is the LAW, SIN, Death and Condemnation. On the right side of the CROSS, there is no Sin, no Death, and no Condemnation. Those who are obsessed with sin are in the flesh.....the Spirit of God does not dwell in them. Thus they are taken up with the flesh. Meshak, God's untruth, Elohym, and Genuine Original (and Shasta is really confused bouncing back and forth). They cannot stop thinking about sin, seeing sin in others, worrying about sin and therefore are under bondage to the Law. Look at them....that's all they can talk about. It's the forbidden fruit syndrome Paul explains so well in Romans 7.

Then why can't all of you who believe in MAD come to an agreement on your various versions of the doctrine? If I were to take your approach I could say that it is because you have mistaken antinomianism for grace.

We are talking about sin because that is an essential part of the topic. You cannot assume that is what any of us thinks about from day to day.