Featured Can Believers Go One Day Without Sinning?

You have no concept of reality but you live inside your own mental world of make believe. Marriage is instituted by God and human marriage is patterned after Christ and the church. You are to love your wife even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. You may be a "good" husband but not a "perfect" one. The marriage vow at minimum incoporates the second of the two great commands and that is to love your neighbor as yourself. You have not done that, you are not doing that, and you will never do that until you are glorified. I have been married to one woman for 38 years and we have had and do have a great marriage and my wife will affirm that. She will affirm that I have been and am a great husband. But she would laugh if I claimed I have been or am a "perfect" husband! You are to love her as Christ loved the Church and no man has ever done that because that does require being AS GOOD AS Christ.

 

>Originally Posted by Moriah
>I have not broken any vows of my marriage. Have you broken any vows to your >husband? You do not have to answer that question just think about it.

Think about it . . . there's the rub. Christians have invented thought crimes which are as serious as real crimes. Further, Baptist Christianity has decided that "commit one sin, commit them all."

So the proper question should be, " Have you thought about the possibility of breaking any vows to your husband?"

 

HP: Here we have Biblicist playing God telling Moriah what he has not been as a husband when he has no evidence of what he speaks. Nothing new there.

DHK, you need to set Biblicist straight. You said on another thread that if God expects us to do something, such as repent, we must have the abilities to do so. Are we to believe that God is expecting an impossiblity from us in the love of our wives that He commands?

 

Thanks HP.

 

Always quote me HP, lest you misrepresent me, and lie in so doing. I don't recall saying any such thing.
There are many goals in this life that God has given us that we will never attain until we reach eternity. The two Great Commandments are examples of such.

 

Yeah, and since that might be the only moment we will ever be able to refer to as "ours", I'm going to hang onto it. :laugh:

Regardless, you have to start somewhere, and humor is a good place to start.

 

I'm perfect; too bad she isn't. :laugh: :laugh:

 

I presented Bibliccal evidence! The husband is to love his wife EVEN AS Christ loved the church! The only love Jesus knows anything about is described in the two great commandments of love. You and Moriah are claiming that you can be precisely what God commands you to be and He commands you to be perfect EVEN AS He is perfect (Mt. 5:46). So you are both claiming that what can be said of Jesus below can also be said of YOU. There are only two possible options, either you are (1) sinless or (2) sinful and He has not commanded you to be sinful and so you are claming the followng can be EQUALLY said of you EVEN AS it is said of Christ:


"I ALWAYS do that which pleases the Father"

"Joh 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?"

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Heb 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

You and Moriah have one of two options! You are either EVEN AS Christ as pertaining to sin - sinless OR you are sinful - there is no middle ground. So, which is it?

 

The true Biblical position is expressed by Paul in Philippians 2:12-14 where he claims that perfection is the goal we ought to press toward while admitting he never has reached that goal but nevertheless still presses toward it:

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

The true Christian is never satisfied with anything less than sinlessness but never able to attain it in this life. However, he can attain PROGRESS toward that goal - progressive sanctification - spiritual maturity.

This is the true Biblical position. The born again Christian is inclined to do good (Rom. 7:18b) but is not without indwelling sin and so there is a warefare going on inside that NEVER stops in this life and indwelling sin is never fully overcome in this life. However, that does not stop the Christian from entering into the battle. Spiritual growth is learning to depend more on the power of the Indwelling Spirit than on self-reliance while engaging in this battle. When you fail then "this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before" - repent and re-engage!

 

Here is your quote:

 

Hold it a minute, Bill! Christians did not "invent thought crimes which are as serious as real crimes." What did Jesus say about adultery in Matthew 5.27-28? Did He say that only outward, physical adultery was sinful?

27 ¶ "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” ​

With regard to your second point, James 2.10 says:

For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.​

So to attribute the existence of this doctrine to a decision made by "Baptist Christianity" is just plain wrong, in my opinion.

 

David, how would you separate a thought to evil or sin, and sin itself?

 

>Hold it a minute, Bill! Christians did not "invent thought crimes which are as serious as real crimes." What did Jesus say about adultery in Matthew 5.27-28? Did He say that only outward, physical adultery was sinful?

You made my point! St Paul, when confessing his sin, conveniently mentioned the only "Jewish" sin that can not be prosecuted under Jewish law.

 

Thoughts may be evil intended but temptation itself NOT sin, but once allowed to stay in the mind, to think about, we start the process of getting it from being just temptation to sin state!

 

The Bible explicitly says there are "evil" thoughts which may or may not materialize as evil actions.

Temptation merely introduces the idea of evil. However, if that introduction is not resisted and rejected but intentionally entertained that constitutes an "evil" thought whether it is acted upon or not.

 

Yes, I remember that now. Remember also, HP, that I am not a Calvinist. This statement was said in refutation of Calvinism. The Calvinist believes that the unsaved man is unable to seek God; that he is unable to repent without divine intervention. But God gives commands in the Bible where he tells the unsaved man to seek God, to repent. Cornelius is an example. He sought God without divine intervention and eventually God sent Peter to him. The Calvinist has a difficult problem explaining this.

My statement was made in this context. IOW, I was saying the do have the ability. Every man has the ability to repent to seek God.

The command given is in Acts 17.
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
--This is a command. He commands all men everywhere to repent--not just the elect. It is a refutation of Calvinism.

It has nothing to do with the topic that we were discussing, but rather a red herring. Why did you bring it up?

In fact you really didn't say what I said. You paraphrased and took it out of context which I have told you not to do. Here is what you said:

Obviously that is not what I said.
That is a misrepresentation, a lie.

 

HP: I believe you have got it right. :thumbsup:

 

HP: Hardly a day goes by even on this list that I do not see a clear illustration of your point. For instance, take DHK's "liar" comment.

 

Wake-up HP! People are taken to court every day and sued, because they have been misrepresented, or their character has been defamed, maligned, or perhaps it was something they stood for like their company or corporation that was maligned or misrepresented.

If you misrepresent me in what you say about me you attack my character. You also do not tell the truth. Not telling the truth is lying. Are you accusing me of telling the truth about you by telling you that you have lied? Then you have nothing to be offended at do you?