Can a Dead Body Sin?

[steaver]

You honestly think I did not know where you were heading with your questions. Maybe they did not eat the bread but were thinking about doing it.

You have answered yourself into quite a pickle brother :love2:

Now you want to change your answers? Because the answers you gave are destroying your view?

I have only followed your lead by your answers and it is leading you into a corner and instead of humbling yourself and contemplating your view you instead scream like a cornered cat!

Let's review my questions and your thoughts....

Steaver: I see that in this passage you reference there are two acts that are singled out.....

1Cr 11:21For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.


One, hogging a bunch of food in and not considering others will not get any.

Two, sucking down a bunch of wine and getting drunk.

Are these two acts, which most definitely were done by saved persons according to scripture, transgressing the law?

God Bless!

I asked about the "acts" that were committed. Not their "thoughts" because I cannot see a brother's thoughts. I am told if I SEE a brother sin a sin that is not unto death I should pray for him. We are not addressing thoughts here, only God can do thoughts.

Your answer was....

BBob: It doesn't specify what, but I suppose it is eating the shew bread just to fill their somachs, instead in worship of the Lord. Or to take the communion, while have an ought against thy brethren. Just my suppositions though.

BBob,

Here you speak of actions that they might have DONE. Not what they might be thinking of doing.

So I commented...

Steaver: These are very serious suppositions! And I believe you nailed it!

You just discribed these believers as breaking these commandments....

Luk 10:27 And he (Jesus) answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

And you then want to spin out of this problem by saying...

BBob: Maybe they did not eat the bread but were thinking about doing it.....I spoke of believers who were about to do something but God would not let them.
Your trap did not work.

So I will pause here and ask you if you want to go with they ate the bread.....

(I suppose it is eating the shew bread just to fill their somachs, instead in worship of the Lord. Or to take the communion, while have an ought against thy brethren. Just my suppositions though.)

or they were thinking about eating the bread....

(Maybe they did not eat the bread but were thinking about doing it.....I spoke of believers who were about to do something but God would not let them.)


God Bless!

 

[Brother Bob]

This dualistic view of man is not supported by scripture no matter how hard one tries. You think you have an old man when scripture teaches that the old man is dead. You and I are new creatures, not a blend of old and new.

2Cr 4:16¶For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward [man] is renewed day by day.


I could ask you if you are a sabbath keeper, but you would probably come up with some rationale for your actions. However, that is not the most important flaw in your thinking. You still have yourself, or part of you perhaps :laugh: , under the law. That is poor theology. You even go on to show this by quoting the following verse.

You do not understand this verse apparently.


Originally Posted by Brother Bob
1Ti 1:9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

[/quote]

Until you understand this, you will never ever understand scripture.

Eph 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

Eph 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

You misunderstand terribly.

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
You honestly think I did not know where you were heading with your questions. Maybe they did not eat the bread but were thinking about doing it.

You have answered yourself into quite a pickle brother :love2:

Now you want to change your answers? Because the answers you gave are destroying your view?

I have only followed your lead by your answers and it is leading you into a corner and instead of humbling yourself and contemplating your view you instead scream like a cornered cat!

Let's review my questions and your thoughts....

Quote:
Steaver: I see that in this passage you reference there are two acts that are singled out.....

1Cr 11:21For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.


One, hogging a bunch of food in and not considering others will not get any.

Two, sucking down a bunch of wine and getting drunk.

Are these two acts, which most definitely were done by saved persons according to scripture, transgressing the law?

God Bless!

I do not know where you get the "sucking down" and "hogging a bunch of food", but I guess you can add what you want. The truth of the matter is there were those eating the Lord's supper, such as Judas, that were not saved but called brothers.


1Cr 5:11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

I asked about the "acts" that were committed. Not their "thoughts" because I cannot see a brother's thoughts. I am told if I SEE a brother sin a sin that is not unto death I should pray for him. We are not addressing thoughts here, only God can do thoughts.

Your answer was....

Quote:
BBob: It doesn't specify what, but I suppose it is eating the shew bread just to fill their somachs, instead in worship of the Lord. Or to take the communion, while have an ought against thy brethren. Just my suppositions though.

BBob,

Here you speak of actions that they might have DONE. Not what they might be thinking of doing.

So I commented...

Quote:
Steaver: These are very serious suppositions! And I believe you nailed it!

You just discribed these believers as breaking these commandments....

Luk 10:27 And he (Jesus) answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.


And you then want to spin out of this problem by saying...

Quote:
BBob: Maybe they did not eat the bread but were thinking about doing it.....I spoke of believers who were about to do something but God would not let them.
Your trap did not work.

I will quote the same scripture there were those who ate the bread who were not saved, take it or leave it but it is the word of God.


1Cr 5:11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

So I will pause here and ask you if you want to go with they ate the bread.....

(I suppose it is eating the shew bread just to fill their somachs, instead in worship of the Lord. Or to take the communion, while have an ought against thy brethren. Just my suppositions though.)

or they were thinking about eating the bread....

(Maybe they did not eat the bread but were thinking about doing it.....I spoke of believers who were about to do something but God would not let them.)


God Bless!
__________________
steaver

Spin your way out of that one. It is plain the unsaved were eating with them.


1Cr 5:11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

BBob,

 

[trustitl]

So Brother Bob, when you sin it is not you sinning, but the outer man. And , this outer man can sin, but not break the 10 Commandments?

Do I understand you properly?

 

[DHK]

1Cr 5:11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

I will quote the same scripture there were those who ate the bread who were not saved, take it or leave it but it is the word of God.

1Cr 5:11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Spin your way out of that one. It is plain the unsaved were eating with them.

1Cr 5:11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

BBob,

Three times you have quoted this verse, and three times you show that either you disbelieve that a Christian cannot sin, or you do not understand Scripture. You seem to be in denial of what the Scripture says here.

Take the context of what had happened Bob.
A "brother in the Lord" had sinned, committed incest, a grievous sin, such was not done even among the Gentiles. But this Christian brother had committed it.
The Corinthians had not disciplined this man, so Paul took action and urged them to do so. The disciplined him out of the church.
The Paul tells them (as with this erring brother), not to keep company with other believers, brothers in the Lord, saints, etc. that are also living in sin (fornicators, idolaters, drunkards, etc.. They were believers but bringing shame to the name of Christ. But they still were believers. Therefore they were not to keep company with them.
This verse is not an example of unbelievers, Bob!

 

[Brother Bob]

Three times you have quoted this verse, and three times you show that either you disbelieve that a Christian cannot sin, or you do not understand Scripture. You seem to be in denial of what the Scripture says here.

Take the context of what had happened Bob.
A "brother in the Lord" had sinned, committed incest, a grievous sin, such was not done even among the Gentiles. But this Christian brother had committed it.
The Corinthians had not disciplined this man, so Paul took action and urged them to do so. The disciplined him out of the church.
The Paul tells them (as with this erring brother), not to keep company with other believers, brothers in the Lord, saints, etc. that are also living in sin (fornicators, idolaters, drunkards, etc.. They were believers but bringing shame to the name of Christ. But they still were believers. Therefore they were not to keep company with them.
This verse is not an example of unbelievers, Bob!

The fact you call him a christian brother, just about says it all.

You amaze me with all your brothers in Christ.
Sure Glad Paul knew better.

1 Corinthians, chapter 5
11: But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12: For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13: But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

[Brother Bob]

So Brother Bob, when you sin it is not you sinning, but the outer man. And , this outer man can sin, but not break the 10 Commandments?

Do I understand you properly?

Its not what I say, its what sayeth the scripture.

1Jo 3:9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Have you an answer for this scripture or do you act as if its not there?????


BBob,

 

[DHK]

You amaze me with all your brothers in Christ.
Sure Glad Paul knew better.

1 Corinthians, chapter 5
11: But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12: For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13: But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

That wicked person, Bob is a brother!
Read the Scriptures. Why don't you believe them?
Paul calls them brothers in spite of your denial.
If any man that is called a brother....
He is speaking of Christians. They are human and they fall in sin; just like David, a man after God's own heart, did. Or maybe, according to you David wasn't saved??

 

[Brother Bob]

That wicked person, Bob is a brother!
Read the Scriptures. Why don't you believe them?
Paul calls them brothers in spite of your denial.
If any man that is called a brother....
He is speaking of Christians. They are human and they fall in sin; just like David, a man after God's own heart, did. Or maybe, according to you David wasn't saved??

Said he was "called" a brother, not a brother and to put such a one from among them.

If David had of been under the Grace Covenant, I do not believe he would of been a man after God's own heart.

I do not believe any of the OT that had concubines, other men's wives, multilble wives would of made it under the Grace Covenant, period.

Mat 5:27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

BBob,

 

[DHK]

Said he was "called" a brother, not a brother and to put such a one from among them.

If David had of been under the Grace Covenant, I do not believe he would of been a man after God's own heart.

I do not believe any of the OT that had concubines, other men's wives, multilble wives would of made it under the Grace Covenant, period.

Mat 5:27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

BBob,

Are you saying that the meaning of the sin of adultery changed between the two testaments. Under Moses it meant one thing. Under Christ it meant another. The Ten Commandments are all relative to one's interpretation??

 

[steaver]

Spin your way out of that one. It is plain the unsaved were eating with them.

Ok, we have gone from these Christians were actually eating unworthily, to maybe these Christians were just thinking about eating unworthily, to now those eating unworthily are not Christians at all. Quite a wiggle, but I'll give you credit for your working it! :thumbs:

Now here is a major problem for your view of Christians never committing sin. Read the following passage...

1Cr 6:6But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
1Cr 6:7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?
1Cr 6:8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

Will you contend that the brothers Paul speaks of here are NOT really brothers??

Paul makes it very clear that he is speaking of judgments WITHIN the body of Christ BETWEEN brothers in Christ....

1Cr 6:5I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?


Paul is speaking about judging matters BETWEEN the saved. You make a grave error when you want to judge every sin between brethern as eternal damnation.

So tell us BBob, is it a sin for a Christian brother to defraud another Christian brother? Will you once again answer that these brothers might have been thinking about defrauding another and didn't actually do it? Will you once again answer that those who defraud others are not really saved when the scripture makes it perfectly clear that this is between the saved?

God Bless! :wavey:

 

[Brother Bob]

Ok, we have gone from these Christians were actually eating unworthily, to maybe these Christians were just thinking about eating unworthily, to now those eating unworthily are not Christians at all. Quite a wiggle, but I'll give you credit for your working it! :thumbs:

Now here is a major problem for your view of Christians never committing sin. Read the following passage...

1Cr 6:6But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
1Cr 6:7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?
1Cr 6:8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

Will you contend that the brothers Paul speaks of here are NOT really brothers??

Paul makes it very clear that he is speaking of judgments WITHIN the body of Christ BETWEEN brothers in Christ....

1Cr 6:5I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?


Paul is speaking about judging matters BETWEEN the saved. You make a grave error when you want to judge every sin between brethern as eternal damnation.

So tell us BBob, is it a sin for a Christian brother to defraud another Christian brother? Will you once again answer that these brothers might have been thinking about defrauding another and didn't actually do it? Will you once again answer that those who defraud others are not really saved when the scripture makes it perfectly clear that this is between the saved?

God Bless! :wavey:

I agree that Paul is most likely speaking of brothers here. Lay off the insults, they have no place here.
Now, maybe there is a dispute over where the property line is, who knows. I do not see any of the big 10 broken here.

Tell me Steaver, do you put both hands over your eyes when you read this scripture or what???

1Cr 5:11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.



BBob,

 

[DHK]

I agree that Paul is most likely speaking of brothers here. Lay off the insults, they have no place here.
Now, maybe there is a dispute over where the property line is, who knows. I do not see any of the big 10 broken here.

Tell me Steaver, do you put both hands over your eyes when you read this scripture or what???

1Cr 5:11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
BBob,

When one defrauds one of his property it is stealing.

1 Corinthians 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
--The verse indicates that the action had already been committed.

According to Barnes the word "defraud" means to suffer a loss of property.
They were suing each other over property rights.

Not only was stealing involved, so was the sin of covetousness.

Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt not steal.

Those are two of the Big Ten--both broken.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Not only was stealing involved, so was the sin of covetousness.

Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt not steal.

Those are two of the Big Ten--both broken.

HP: Says who, besides DHK? There is absolutely no indication of either of the two commandments you mention broken in the passage in question.

 

[DHK]

HP: Says who, besides DHK? There is absolutely no indication of either of the two commandments you mention broken in the passage in question.

Read carefully Steaver's posts. Here is some of the Scripture he posted.
Also consider carefully what is meant by the word "defraud."

1Cr 6:6But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
1Cr 6:7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?
1Cr 6:8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

If it isn't stealing;
If it isn't coveting;
Then what is it?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Read carefully Steaver's posts. Here is some of the Scripture he posted.
Also consider carefully what is meant by the word "defraud."

1Cr 6:6But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
1Cr 6:7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?
1Cr 6:8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

If it isn't stealing;
If it isn't coveting;
Then what is it?

HP: The issue is not stealing property or even coveting property so far as we know from Scripture. Both parties could have had every right to believe they were right in the matter. The problem was not so much the issue between them that was in error on eithers part, but rather Paul is addressing ‘the manner’ in which they were utilizing to solve the issue. The point was NOT that one was actually defrauding the other concerning the issue at the heart of the dispute, but that the appearance of the way they were going about in settling it in the civil courts, seting up a non-believer as a judge between them, was the point of 'defrauding' the other. Paul was telling them that they should be willing to suffer what 'in their own eyes,' from 'their own persective,' might 'appear to be 'an injustice,' regardless of the who in reality was right or at fault.

Again, Paul is simply saying regardless of who is at fault, or IF anyone is in reality at fault, it would be better for a Christian to suffer what ‘they might perceive’ as an injustice at the hands of the other than to take the matter before an unbelieving civil judge to decide.

The matter is not of stealing, or coveting, as far as we know from the actual passage in question, but rather it consists in how to handle disputes between the brethren. A fellow believer should be willing to accept what 'to them' might 'appear to be' an injustice rather than to see the name of Christ drug through the civil courts before unbelievers in a manner inconsistent with Christian brotherly love.

 

[DHK]

Again, Paul is simply saying regardless of who is at fault, or IF anyone is in reality at fault, it would be better for a Christian to suffer what ‘they might perceive’ as an injustice at the hands of the other than to take the matter before an unbelieving civil judge to decide.

The matter is not of stealing, or coveting, as far as we know from the actual passage in question, but rather it consists in how to handle disputes between the brethren. A fellow believer should be willing to accept what 'to them' might 'appear to be' an injustice rather than to see the name of Christ drug through the civil courts before unbelievers in a manner inconsistent with Christian brotherly love.

You are only partly right.
1. They were not to go to the secular judges but to judge thing among themselves.
2. They were to suffer loss, if necessary. However:
3. They actually committed the sin of theft. They did defraud! or steal.

1Cr 6:8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

The sin is committed, and Paul rebukes them for it.
They came. They looked. They coveted. And they stole.

 

[Brother Bob]

You are only partly right.
1. They were not to go to the secular judges but to judge thing among themselves.
2. They were to suffer loss, if necessary. However:
3. They actually committed the sin of theft. They did defraud! or steal.

1Cr 6:8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

The sin is committed, and Paul rebukes them for it.
They came. They looked. They coveted. And they stole.

The wrong was letting the court of the unbelievers decide who's property it was. It would be better to lose the property than let an unbeliever decide. (That is the wrong) Scripture plainy says so.

1Cr 6:7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another.

They needed an arbitrator to decide who's property it really was, for apparently both parties thought it was theirs. That happens all the time, but let a wise man among the believers decide who it belongs to and if its not yours, then it better you suffer the loss, rather than go before the unbeliever. (which is the wrong)

You are the one turning it into stealing, when its no doubt an honest mistake to where the property line is. Happens all the time.

BBob,

 

[DHK]

You are the one turning it into stealing, when its no doubt an honest mistake to where the property line is. Happens all the time.

BBob,

This is not an honest mistake. It is a clear violation of the law.

1Cr 6:8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

 

[Brother Bob]

This is not an honest mistake. It is a clear violation of the law.

1Cr 6:8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren.

It is not. Scripture is saying it is better that a wise man among you decide the property is not yours, even though you think it is and suffer loss, rather than go before the law.

It could of went the other way as well and the other brother would suffer the loss, that he thought it was his property, but better to lose it, than go to law.

That is all it is saying, they would not need an arbitrator, if it was so sure who the property belonged to. Both parties believed it belonged to them. They might not even be suffering loss, but only in their minds.

Scripture tells plainly what the wrong is, and that is letting the court decide, instead of a wise man among you.

Even the wise man, may make a mistake and give it to the wrong person, but still better to suffer the loss, than go before the court.

The sin is committed, and Paul rebukes them for it.
They came. They looked. They coveted. And they stole.

__________________
DHK

You go so far as to say they all stole and coveted. I tell my congregation not to take their brother to law, does that mean they have done wrong, no I tell them just in case they think they were done wrong. Same to the Corths.

BBob,