'Christians don't sin'

[steaver]

I do not feel so bad now, that I know you fellows even go after the Apostles also. You all are good and sitting on a very high seat. Be careful, you don't fall.

BBob

We are on the high seat?? We confess our transgression of the law. You say you have none! We see from scripture that the Apostles had some of these sins, but you say you have none. Who is on the high seat??

 

[steaver]

There was sin long before the Law was ever added. You do know that do you not?

BBob,

Yes, I know that brother. The law was added because of transgressions.

I know if you break one of the Commandments and do not repent, it will bring you the second death.

The flip side to this then is keep the law and you will live, this is FASLE.

....for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Gal 3:17And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Once In Christ, the Law cannot disannul the promise.

 

[steaver]

HP: I could not agree more Brother Bob. This business of belittling every saint, and calling sin anything they so desire if it supports the sinning religion they seem so bent on maintaining, goes hand in hand with the playbook of those that just might be trying hard to find an excuse for their own sin.

I am a saint and I think BBob is trying to belittle me at times.

BTW, I have no excuses for my own transgressions of the law, in fact I confess my transgressions of the law and God is faithful to forgive me my transgressions of the law.

Do you have any transgressions of the law HP??

 

[steaver]

I am not accusing anyone of sin, nor am I name-calling as some do on a regular basis, calling those on this list names regularly such names as ‘liars’, but rather simply mentioning this verse as food for thought and for personal introspection of all of us that take the name of Christ that such not once said among us when we stand before the Judge of all the earth.
Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude is speaking of non-Christians. Are you implying that someone here in this conversation is antichrist??

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: You have failed to weigh in on the real matter being discussed.

HP: Your comments are certainly subjective. I weigh in on what I believe is crucial to this discussion or any other. Simply because many of you have tried to pin brother Bob to a tree over his beliefs, and I have for reasons of my own not done so, is no proof that I have failed to speak to the heart of the issue being discussed. It just so happens that I see Brother Bob’s possible error as of little consequence in comparison to what I see as grave error on the part of those accusing him.

TrustitL: To try claim that I am "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" is quite a stretch from the issue here (see the title: Christians don't sin).

HP: I made it exceedingly clear as to why I posted that verse, and your name, nor that of any others was mentioned. It was for introspection of ourselves, myself included.

TrustitL: You are smart enough to see why Peter withdrew from the Gentiles. Can you explain it in such a way that Brother Bob can understand?

HP: What you and all others have completely failed to do is in any way establish what Peter did as sin. Your duty, as well as those that agree that it is sin, is to prove that by Scripture, not some presupposition that it must be believed in order to bolster a sinning religion’s notions. Your agument that it is sin is to argue where Scripture is silent. I cannot tell you whether it was in fact sin or not, neither would I attempt to guess. God alone knows. What is important is that whatever it was, Peter had a change of heart before he was called from this world, that is for certain. No comparison to that bed of adultery some have Christians lying on as they pass from this world into the next with no evidence of any change of heart whatsoever.

TrustitL: Do you agree with Bob that is it impossible for the Apostles to have failed, even to the point of sinning?

HP: I do not believe that I have ever read Brother Bob stating that an apostle could not have sinned, but rather as I read him I believe that he is opposed to the notion that sin is simply forgiven apart from the fulfilling of the condition of repentance as some on this list claim. That is the heart of the matter as I read him. Rather than to usher sinners into the kingdom in an unrepented state as so many on this list are doing, with their admittance into the kingdom straight from an aduklterous bed without any sign whatsoever of a change of heart or repentance, his position would be that they must never have been saved in the first place. I would not take that position either, but I find that far more tolerable than the sinning religion I see being advanced.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: I am a saint

HP: Then act like one:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: We confess our transgression of the law. You say you have none!

HP: The lowest sinner on the earth can confess their transgressions a thousand times a day and never be converted. “Unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.”

I would say with scripture that when we confess and forsake our sins, trusting in God to forgive us for our sins that are past that He indeed removes EVERY STAIN OF SIN FOR THOSE SINS THAT ARE PAST, NEVER to be remembered again! We are made clean and holy, free from sin, washed by the blood of the Lamb. Brother, that is sin free!

We are then told to continue walking in obedience if we desire to remain in good standing before God and to hold in good standing our hope of eternal life. There is not a Scripture anywhere that assures one of a final standing with God as Christ as our Advocate if we turn from that hope back into sin and fail to repent for those transgressions. As a matter of fact, Scripture is clear as to the fate of those that return to sin apart from the fulfilling of the conditions, without which no forgiveness from sin will happen. Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

HP: Is it not about time to seriously consider this passage apart from any and all presuppositions of OSAS simply being read into the text?

 

[steaver]

BTW, I have no excuses for my own transgressions of the law, in fact I confess my transgressions of the law and God is faithful to forgive me my transgressions of the law.

Do you have any transgressions of the law HP??

 

[steaver]

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

HP: Is it not about time to seriously consider this passage apart from any and all presuppositions of OSAS simply being read into the text?

What is to seriously consider apart from OSAS? Interpret and apply the verse for us. You might want to start a new thread though, this one is coming to a close and OSAS is not the topic.

 

[trustitl]

HP: Your comments are certainly subjective. I weigh in on what I believe is crucial to this discussion or any other. Simply because many of you have tried to pin brother Bob to a tree over his beliefs, and I have for reasons of my own not done so, is no proof that I have failed to speak to the heart of the issue being discussed. It just so happens that I see Brother Bob’s possible error as of little consequence in comparison to what I see as grave error on the part of those accusing him.

I still don't see you answering the the question in the OP: Can a Christian sin? Also, it is interesting that you will overlook what you see as a possible error when doing so may support those that you see as being in "grave error". I am not trying to pin Bob to a tree (harsh words by the way- sounds like what happened to Jesus.) Bob is just not answering clear and simple questions.

HP: I made it exceedingly clear as to why I posted that verse, and your name, nor that of any others was mentioned. It was for introspection of ourselves, myself included.

I looked back at it and accept your stated intent as pure. It is well placed. :thumbs:

HP: What you and all others have completely failed to do is in any way establish what Peter did as sin. Your duty, as well as those that agree that it is sin, is to prove that by Scripture, not some presupposition that it must be believed in order to bolster a sinning religion’s notions. Your agument that it is sin is to argue where Scripture is silent. I cannot tell you whether it was in fact sin or not, neither would I attempt to guess. God alone knows. What is important is that whatever it was, Peter had a change of heart before he was called from this world, that is for certain. No comparison to that bed of adultery some have Christians lying on as they pass from this world into the next with no evidence of any change of heart whatsoever.

You cannot "in any way establish" and "prove by scripture" that Peter went to heaven. You work very hard at telling people to use their heads when reading scripture which I very much appreciate. Now, using yours, what would you call Peter's dissembling? Paul said he was to be "blamed" (Strongs # 2607 kataginōskō - 1: to find fault with, blame. 2: to accuse, condemn) If it were not sin, why as you stated, would he needed to have "had a change of heart before he was called from this world"? Isn't that repenting?

HP: I do not believe that I have ever read Brother Bob stating that an apostle could not have sinned, but rather as I read him I believe that he is opposed to the notion that sin is simply forgiven apart from the fulfilling of the condition of repentance as some on this list claim. That is the heart of the matter as I read him. Rather than to usher sinners into the kingdom in an unrepented state as so many on this list are doing, with their admittance into the kingdom straight from an aduklterous bed without any sign whatsoever of a change of heart or repentance, his position would be that they must never have been saved in the first place. I would not take that position either, but I find that far more tolerable than the sinning religion I see being advanced.

I have never advocated that a person can enter into heaven in an unrepentant state. What I am saying is that a person who is covered by the blood is able to sin. You are wanting a sign that a person is repentant. I would agree with what you said above: "God alone knows".

 

[steaver]

HP: Then act like one:thumbs:

Bingo! You got it! This is what most of the NT letters is teaching you. You are a saint now act like a saint!

 

[DHK]

I do not have to defend "lies" from you or anyone else.

BBob,

I never lied Bob. My statement can be verified by most people on this board. For those who don't know what we're talking about I'll post the quote again:

Originally Posted by DHK
Are you suggesting that when you bear false witness against your brother (as has been so evident on this board), then the Holy Spirit leaves you.
I thought you believed in OSAS?

The fact is that you have borne false witness many times, and others will testify to it. Bearing false witness is the same as lying. So in this quote you have lied again by the sheer denial of lying.
Now consider what Paul says about doing such:

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

You have put yourself under the law, saying that in order to be a Christian you must keep the law--that a born again Christian does not break the law--as adultery. You have put yourself under the law.
Paul says for those to do so: if they don't keep all the all from birth to death, not breaking or transgressing even one time in their entire life, then they are cursed. Just breaking the law once will curse you--condemn you.
--The fact is that we all, including you, break God's law many times, possibly every day.
You must "continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them"--birth to death--or you are cursed.

Is that your testimony?

 

[Brother Bob]

I never lied Bob. My statement can be verified by most people on this board. For those who don't know what we're talking about I'll post the quote again:

The fact is that you have borne false witness many times, and others will testify to it. Bearing false witness is the same as lying. So in this quote you have lied again by the sheer denial of lying.
Now consider what Paul says about doing such:

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

You have put yourself under the law, saying that in order to be a Christian you must keep the law--that a born again Christian does not break the law--as adultery. You have put yourself under the law.
Paul says for those to do so: if they don't keep all the all from birth to death, not breaking or transgressing even one time in their entire life, then they are cursed. Just breaking the law once will curse you--condemn you.
--The fact is that we all, including you, break God's law many times, possibly every day.
You must "continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them"--birth to death--or you are cursed.

Is that your testimony?



[/i]

I do not believe as you and the others that you can rape a 6 year old girl and the father shoots you between the eyes while you are in the act with a 38 and you still go to heaven.

You believe the devil's doctrine.

The following is my doctrine, my life and the way I shall die. You and the others sin all you want, live as you may, die as you will. We will both stand before God according to how we have lived. I teach not to sin, You teach Christians not only sin, they sin greivously and can even die unrepentant and go to heaven. No where is scripture does it teach such a doctrine. It is not the Gospel, but a doctrine of fables and death.

1Jo 2:4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver:You are a saint now act like a saint!

HP: I have to admit that is often easier to hold in my doctrine than in my actions. “He’s still working on me.”

 

[Joe]

I do not believe as you and the others that you can rape a 6 year old girl and the father shoots you between the eyes while you are in the act with a 38 and you still go to heaven.

You believe the devil's doctrine.

The following is my doctrine, my life and the way I shall die. You and the others sin all you want, live as you may, die as you will. We will both stand before God according to how we have lived. I teach not to sin, You teach Christians not only sin, they sin greivously and can even die unrepentant and go to heaven. No where is scripture does it teach such a doctrine. It is not the Gospel, but a doctrine of fables and death.

1Jo 2:4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

BBob,

Just curious....
I know your thoughts about adultery but do you believe a man could be saved while in the act of attempting to murder a man out of cold blood? This would be a righteous man thus clearly be breaking the 5th commandment "thou shall not murder"
Or his own son possibly?

 

[EdSutton]

Speaking by the Holy Spirit and being Indwelt with the Holy Spirit, is a great difference and you know it.

I agree fully, and never said the two were identical, and in fact, noted a difference. I said that David had to "have" the Holy Spirit, in some senses, else what he prayed, and Jesus' statement about him made no sense.

Also, I see you used Webster, then go look when the word orginated, it will tell you without bios (sic). You can use the definition of "dissemble with" or you can use hypocrite. I say Peter disassembled from the Gentiles and others followed. You can use the word hypocrite.

Funny, you should mention 'bias' (for that is the word I believe you intended as opposed to the abbrevaition for 'biographies.'). However, even you (not to mention your own favorite Greek resource, Strong's Concordance) should notice the difference (Strong's does notice this difference, unlike Brother Bob ) between "dissemble" - from 4942 sunupokrinomai - sunupokrinomai - soon-oo-pok-rin'-om-ahee) from sun - sun 4862 and upokrinomai - hupokrinomai 5271; (which is defined as) to act hypocritically in concert with :-- [and which is rendered as (You really should invest the 10 minutes sometime to read "The Plan of the Book" found on page 5 of both the Hebrew and Greek concordances in "Strong's" to learn how the book is actually set up, as opposed to simply reading your own interpretation out of it, based on some word you find under an entry, you know!) in the 1769 'Benjamin Blaney' redo of the KJV, RV, and ASV (unless otherwise noted for the RV and/or ASV)], "dissemble with", and "dissimulation" from 5272 upokrithV - hupokrites, hoop-ok-ree-tace'; from upokrinomai - hupokrinomai 5271; acting under a feigned part, i.e. (figuratively) deceit ("hypocrisy"):-- (and rendered as) condemnation, dissimulation, hypocrisy. (The KJV translators even render this word as hypocrisy, in Mt. 23:28; Mk. 12:15; Lk. 12:1; I Ti. 4:2; Jas. 3:17 and I Pet. 2:1, (Jas. 5:12 - WEB) ,and only here render it as "dissimulation".) The word comes from the underlined, blue bolded word above, that, if transliterated is exactly "hypocrites" for cryin' out loud, yet you are questioning this rendering, because it is not exactly "spelled out" in the KJV? Get real. One would not have to recognize the first Greek letter, and merely be able to read this account in the the English of the WYC, KJV, or about any other standard version to see that hypocrisy is exactly what is in view here.

You are entirely correct, albeit unwittingly, that "disassembling" was what Peter was doing - withdrawing and not eating with the Gentiles when those "of the circumcision" were in town, because Peter was afraid of the Jews.

Paul, not EdSutton or any other BB Poster whom you have so wrongly suggested of wanting to 'put down the Apostles,' says "11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
Did you get it? Paul got in Peter's face, as we would say today, and they went 'toe to toe' over this, because of something Peter was doing. What was Peter doing? "Disassembling" with the Gentile brethren.
"12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."
Any questions? The verse seems perfectly clear. Or does it? Overlooked in this, oftentimes, is that this verse, describing Peter's actions show where Peter is directly disobeying God's specific commands to him regarding foods being as 'clean' and 'unclean', given three times, no less, in Ac. 10:10-16, where God announced that He has declared these foods as clean, and commanded Peter to 'Arise, kill, and eat the food provided.'

Are you surprised that Peter's initial response was "Not so, Lord!" Where have we heard that one before? Uh- (Mt. 16:22; 23:35)! Let's continue, with how Paul sees this as hypocrisy.
"13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." Even Barnabas, another apostle (and yes, Barnabas is an apostle, just as are both Peter, and Paul), was "carried away" in this. This hypocrisy, and conflict is not isolated to some nameless individual, somewhere, but now has ensnared three Apostles, including two of the four leading ones, and Paul's own mentor. Sounds kinda' important, I would say.
" 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, ..."
Here, Paul called Peter out publicly (in Antioch) and is telling those in Galatia exactly what he both did and said, there, and here is the 'speech," viz.
"If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."



This is not that hard to understand, IMO, as to the "why", even in the KJV or WYC, and the WYC is written in "Middle English", and not even in any "Modern English," unlike the 'Early Modern English' of the KJV.

Incidentally, I suppose this is as good a place to say this, as any other. Has anyone considered "why" the KJV translators give an 'inconsistent reading' for "hupocrites" here, as opposed to the other uses rendered as "hypocrisy", found elsewhere?

I will suggest it may be because they, just as you, Brother Bob, were extremely reluctant to identify Peter with any hypocrisy, in any form, whatsoever, if they could find some way to avoid it. Who were the KJV translators? For the most part, they were 'second generation' scholars from the Anglican Church, which was, at that time, effectively the "Roman Catholic" church minus only the, at that time, current pope, and College of Cardinals, since Henry VIII had 'deposed the pope', and made himself, as the king, the titular 'physical' head of the Church of England, (so that he could divorce Catherine of Aragon, in order to marry Anne Boleyn) with his buddy, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the 'Spiritual Head' of the said church.

Try as I might, even today, I still find it hard to fathom the number of of Baptists, especially 'Calvinistic' Baptists, that advocate for the KJV, a translation that was effectively done by the Church of England, as a 'house organ', that would not do too much damage to their doctrines, while giving little attention to the Geneva Bible, which was translated by persecuted Protestant scholars who fled to escape the Roman Catholic Queen, Mary I, and some major modern versions, such as the very good, if overly 'literal' NASB, the HCSB, commissioned and owned by the Southern Baptist Convention (which was comissioned and conjoined with the work of 'Baptist' Arthur Farstad, etc. at al. in opposition to the 'Liberal' type tendancies of the NIV and TNIV that were growing, and one with a large number of top-flite scholars, theologians, linguists, and translators, including many Baptists, and the equally scholarly NKJV, the most 'Baptist' of all major "standard" translations.

To see so many individuals saying "Yes!" to the High Anglican Church version of the KJV, with the language that is dated by 2 1/2 to 4 centuries and when language is constantly changing, and questionable theology (not to mention the support given to a "divine right of kings") backing the KJV (or likewise, lauding the modern 'all inclusive' types NIV and/or TNIV),

while saying "NO!" to the GENEVA, NASB, HCSB, and NKJV is simply astounding to me, as a 'Protestant' and a 'Baptist.'

Finally, what exactly was Peter's response at Paul's 'face to face" confrontation with himself, at Antioch? Was he upset with Paul after it was over, and Paul wrote about it for another church? Um- no. He said it was Scripture! (II Pet. 3:15-16)

Let me repeat that! Peter said it was Scripture.

More later. You have all been warned. :smilewinkgrin:

Ed

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: You cannot "in any way establish" and "prove by scripture" that Peter went to heaven. You work very hard at telling people to use their heads when reading scripture which I very much appreciate. Now, using yours, what would you call Peter's dissembling?

HP: Why don't we stay Scriptural and simply call it dissembling. :thumbs:

TrustitL: Paul said he was to be "blamed" (Strongs # 2607 kataginōskō - 1: to find fault with, blame. 2: to accuse, condemn) If it were not sin, why as you stated, would he needed to have "had a change of heart before he was called from this world"? Isn't that repenting?

HP: Scripture never called it sin that I know of. It is entirely possible that Peter had no light as to his actions being wrong., just as I or some on this list have done wrong and possibly have not had ‘sin’ imputed to their charge. Certainly after light is received repentance is in order, yet that does not necessarily signify that sin was present before the light came. “To him that KNOWETH to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Light is a prerequisite for sin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: I do not believe that I have ever read Brother Bob stating that an apostle could not have sinned, but rather as I read him I believe that he is opposed to the notion that sin is simply forgiven apart from the fulfilling of the condition of repentance as some on this list claim. That is the heart of the matter as I read him. Rather than to usher sinners into the kingdom in an unrepentant state as so many on this list are doing, with their admittance into the kingdom straight from an adulterous bed without any sign whatsoever of a change of heart or repentance, his position would be that they must never have been saved in the first place. I would not take that position either, but I find that far more tolerable than the sinning religion I see being advanced.

TrustitL: I have never advocated that a person can enter into heaven in an unrepentant state. What I am saying is that a person who is covered by the blood is able to sin. You are wanting a sign that a person is repentant. I would agree with what you said above: "God alone knows".

HP: I certainly feel that one that ‘has been’ (past tense) covered by the blood can sin, but I believe it to be contrary to Scripture to say that present or future sins are under the blood that have not been repented of. Lu 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (that includes all that sin, whether or not they have been saints or have never been saved.)

So one has received forgiveness for ‘sins that are past’ and goes out and commits adultery or fornication. Does such a one have to repent in order to inherit eternal life, or will they be part of the redeemed even though, like Brother Bob’s illustration, they died in the act of, say, raping a minor child?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Joe: Just curious....
I know your thoughts about adultery but do you believe a man could be saved while in the act of attempting to murder a man out of cold blood? This would be a righteous man thus clearly be breaking the 5th commandment "thou shall not murder"
Or his own son possibly?

HP: Would you please expound on this preposterous account of attempting ‘cold blooded murder’ you speak of? If you are speaking of Abraham, you could not be further from the truth.

 

[EdSutton]

The option of calling a Godly man, such as David, a false and ungodly teacher is not there.

Yes it is. It is found in Romans 4.

I know not where this quote came from, nor where its been. It sure did not come from me and I had nothing whatsoever to do with it, so do not tie me in anyway to it. You find out who you are speaking to, before making any accusations, it might be so and so who quoted it, is not good enough.

BTW; all those scholars you quoted, they were not there either and most if not all of the translations acknowledge in the beginning, it is to the best they know how, that it is not a perfect translation, for from Greek to English, can not be perfect. Even today, when you look up the orginal Greek, you still have to use English translation, to the best that man knows, it still is not a perfect translation. Except by Ed of course.

I, in no way, tied you or any other individual, to the above bolded 'quoted' quote, for the individual it may have originated with does not matter. It is the quote that I found offensive (to say this far more charitably about the quote than it deserves), and objected to, saying so clearly. There were no accusations made at anyone about it, which is why my post was opended, not replying to, thus quoting, any specific individual, but with an 'unidentified' quote.

And your 'crack' about translation 'claims' and inferences is also entirely unfounded, based on anything I said in the post.

Ed