Nineveh's SPotD April 25, 2006

[Nineveh]

Of course it was. The Gentiles did not have the Law, nor will they ever. So then, why do you think that Gentiles are sinners? Why can Paul say that all have sinned? Why can Paul say to the Gentiles in Romans 6 that they were slaves of sin?

Because prior to Christ's work being applied to us we ARE slaves of sin, we cannot save ourselves.

After we are baptized into Christ's death God associates us with Christ and we are no longer viewed as sinners. All of our sins are covered, our past sin, our present sin and our future sin. All of our sin.

But that doesn't mean that we still don't miss that mark and do sinful things. It's just that the penalty for that sin has already been paid for in full by Christ's death on the cross.

Paul wrote to those in the Body...

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.

Therefore it is clear we can sin, but thankfully that sin is already been paid for.

Post 23

Awsome!

 

[Lighthouse]

And if it's paid for, why is it still called debt?

 

[Nineveh]

Who is calling it debt, as in something to be paid? What else should we call it other than sin?

 

[Lighthouse]

Is it a crime if it's not illegal?

 

[Nineveh]

What else should we call it other than sin?

 

[Nineveh]

C'mon Lighthouse, it has to have a name...

"an accident"? "a booboo"? "an oopsie"?

 

[Lighthouse]

It's wrong. It's immoral. It's unprofitable. There are any number of thigs it can be called. But if committed by one who is not identified as a sinner, why identify it as a sin?

 

[Poly]

It's wrong. It's immoral. It's unprofitable. There are any number of thigs it can be called. But if committed by one who is not identified as a sinner, why identify it as a sin?

It's immoral but it's not a sin? If it's not looked upon by God as a sin then how can He look upon it as immoral?

 

[Lighthouse]

It's immoral but it's not a sin? If it's not looked upon by God as a sin then how can He look upon it as immoral?

Because sin is not defined by morality.

 

[Nineveh]

Morality: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

Sin: A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

If God's morality doesn't define sin, what does?

 

[Lighthouse]

God's righteousness is what defines sin. And when God has made someone righteous they are no longer identified by their sin. And if sin is a transgression of a law, and Christians are not under a law, and when there is no law there is no transgression, how can a Christian sin?

 

[Poly]

God's righteousness is what defines sin. And when God has made someone righteous they are no longer identified by their sin.

"no longer identified by their sin".

Even in trying to make your argument that Christians can't sin, you refer to them as having sin by saying "their sin", something that still occurs even in those whom God has made righteous through Christ. So you are correct in saying that they are no longer identified by their sin but by Christ.

 

[Nineveh]

God's righteousness is what defines sin.

Righteousness: Morally upright; without guilt or sin

And when God has made someone righteous they are no longer identified by their sin.

True! I am no longer identified with sin, I am identified with Christ. But that doesn't mean I can't commit a sin.

And if ...

Oh... Lighthouse : sigh : Haven't you debated lee merril enough to dread a sentence that starts with "if"?

sin is a transgression of a law, and Christians are not under a law, and when there is no law there is no transgression, how can a Christian sin?

You said it yourself, we aren't identified with it, that still doesn't mean we can not act immoral according to God's standard. Didn't you create a thread once about diplomatic immunity? If a diplomat parallel parks, he gets a ticket that says he broke the law, but he doesn't have to pay for it. He isn't known as a "parallel parker" he is known as the diplomat form Whereverstan.

 

[Lighthouse]

What I meant is that they are no longer identified as sinners. Sin is in the flesh, and the flesh is not in Christ. What makes one a Christian is being in Christ, and only the spirit is in Christ. And in Christ there is no sin. Romans 7:20 explains it quite nicely. That of me which sins is not that of me which is Christian.

 

[Lighthouse]

Righteousness: Morally upright; without guilt or sin



True! I am no longer identified with sin, I am identified with Christ. But that doesn't mean I can't commit a sin.



Oh... Lighthouse : sigh : Haven't you debated lee merril enough to dread a sentence that starts with "if"?



You said it yourself, we aren't identified with it, that still doesn't mean we can not act immoral according to God's standard. Didn't you create a thread once about diplomatic immunity? If a diplomat parallel parks, he gets a ticket that says he broke the law, but he doesn't have to pay for it. He isn't known as a "parallel parker" he is known as the diplomat form Whereverstan.

Yes, I did start that thread. And the point I was making was that the diplomat wasn't breaking any law, because it was not a crime for the diplomat to commit such an act.

 

[Nineveh]

Yes, I did start that thread. And the point I was making was that the diplomat wasn't breaking any law, because it was not a crime for the diplomat to commit such an act.

By our standard of Law (God's Standard), It's still against the law (God's Law) to parallel park (steal). Will the diplomat (Christian) have to pay the fine (be sent to hell) for breaking that law? No. He was granted immunity (saved) by the government (God).

 

[Lighthouse]

We, as Christians, are not under the law, period.

 

[Nineveh]

What I meant is that they are no longer identified as sinners.

I think it safe to say we all agree on this point.

Sin is in the flesh, and the flesh is not in Christ.

And this point.

What makes one a Christian is being in Christ,

And this point.

and only the spirit is in Christ.

And this point.

And in Christ there is no sin.

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,..."

Romans 7:20 explains it quite nicely.

"Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."

What is "it"? Righteous/moral acts?

v19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

That of me which sins is not that of me which is Christian.

Do you allow your flesh to do as it freely wills? Paul tells us to offer up our members to righteousness, he seems to think we need to control ourselves. From what? Committing acts of righteousness?

"For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness."

 

[Lighthouse]

I think it safe to say we all agree on this point.



And this point.



And this point.



And this point.



"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,..."



"Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."

What is "it"? Righteous/moral acts?

"it" is sin. Paul is saying, "It is no longer I who commit sin..." Because he does not identify himself with it. Which is actually what Sozo is saying. And I only found that out because I dialogued with him long enough. He isn't articulate in all of his posts, so it takes him a while to get around to what he actually means. And he's not extremely patient, either, so not too many people get very far with him, especially if they aren't patient. Of course, I'm not naming any namesCRASH:noid:, but he will get there if you take the time. And I get there, as well, as you can see.

v19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

Yes...

Do you allow your flesh to do as it freely wills? Paul tells us to offer up our members to righteousness, he seems to think we need to control ourselves. From what? Committing acts of righteousness?

"For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness."

I cannot control myself, so I must let God control me. I must live by the faith of Christ, and not rely upon my own works, for they are worthless, my righteousness is as filthy rags. I must identify myself with Christ, and not with who I was apart from Him, for who I was is no longer who I am.

 

[Nineveh]

Lighthouse,

"it" is sin.

Yes, it is.

Because he does not identify himself with it.

Which means he isn't a sinner, as in unrepentant/held accountable/going to hell, but he is admitting he commits acts contrary to what the Spirit would want him to do.

I have to agree with Knight here, it seems to be a game of semantics. Why try to sugar coat the word when it is what it is. Surely Paul could not have used a more descriptive word than evil (Morally bad or wrong; wicked).