'Christians don't sin'

[EdSutton]

I am nost unhappy with this quote, regardless of who actually made parts of it!!

Sorry. Can't let this pass, either.

Also remember that bearing false witness is just as great a sin as adultery in God's sight. Most who have seen your posts will attest to your failure in that area. If you have sinned in one area it is just as bad as sinning in them all.
Quote:
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.

Romans 4 says absolutely nothing about calling any "godly man" be it David or another, a false and ungodly teacher.
And given that Paul, here quotes David (Ps:32:1-2), and cites what Scripture says about Abraham (Gen. 15:6), to show that God imputes our faith, apart from any 'works,' I suggest whoever actually said this, (for I cannot tell for sure with whom this originated, in the convoluted post with three sets of quotes) should seriously consider 'recanting' this last two sentences, starting with "Yes it is.", in its entirety.

Further, I suggest the real "false and ungodly teacher" here, is one who refuses to accept this Biblical declaration, in Rom. 4, that God does impute to us this righteousness, apart from any works we do, and James does not 'contravene' this statement, about Abraham, either, but James is telling us that Abraham "fulfilled" this previous Scriptural declaration, in showing his faith before man, by the offering of Isaac, which event transpired some 30 years after God had declared Abraham as righteous. (Gen. 15:6; 22:1-19; Rom. 4:1- 5:5; Gal. 3:1-9; Jas. 2:1-26)

And as it relates to this thread, does not Apollos speak to this, and James also ask -

31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace. (Heb. 11:31 - NKJV)

"Likewise, was not Rahab, the harl*t, 'justified by works' when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" (Jas. 2:26 - NKJV)

Uh - How did Rahab get into the 'Hall of Fame of Faith', and be justified before man?

Guess what! It was by lying, among other things, and you might wanna' sometime read all of Joshua chapters 2 and 6, Ps. 87:3-5, and then Matt. 1:5 to get all "The Rest of the Story." We've touched on the first parts, only.

3 So the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the country.”
4 Then the woman took the two men and hid them. So she said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. 5 And it happened as the gate was being shut, when it was dark, that the men went out. Where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you may overtake them.” 6 (But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order on the roof.) (Josh, 2:3-6 cp. 6:17, 23, 25 - NKJV)

Oh yeah, couple or three more itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, insignificant, minuscule, annoying, trivial things of no real importance, here - (Or so it appears that some think about the actual wording that Scripture uses, anyway.)

The word of God never says anyplace that either David or Rahab "repented of (their) sins", or that Rahab "used to be a pr*stit#te", in any Scripture that I've read, regardless of your or my personal opinion.

It does say that David 'confessed' his sin, however, to get back into the proper 'fellowship' with God. {The relationship of David and God [just as the relationship of 'the two sons with the father,' whom Jesus knew, BTW (but chose not to identify), and spoke of in the account (It is not a parable.) found in Lk. 15:11-32] never changed, however the 'fellowship' of God anad David "sure took a beating."} (II Sam. 11:13; Ps. 51: esp. vs. 3-4)

Second, while I so not believe that David was "indwelt" with the Holy Spirit, as we are "indwelt" in the 'church age', he certainly "had" the Holy Spirit, else his asking God not take it from him, makes absolutely no sense. (Ps. 52:11) Not to even mention that Jesus specifically said David spoke by the Holy Spirit (Mk. 12:36), Apollos says the Holy Spirit 'spoke' "in David" (Heb. 3:7 cp. 4:7), and the Holy Spirit is said to be "upon" someone, well over 30 times in the OT, so I suggest these Scriptures are telling us that there was some way, that David "had" the Holy Spirit.

Finally, I noticed where Brother Bob twice mentioned 'not being there', in two instances; in one instance- regarding both Peter's hypocrisy at Antioch [yes, hypocrisy is exactly what word rendered in the KJV as "dissimulation" means, and the more than 300 scholars of the ESV, HCSB, NKJV, NIV, AMP, NCV, TNIV, NLT, MLB, and NASB, every scholar of which has most likely forgotten more about the Greek language in the last month than I will ever know in my entire life, all collectively render the words as "hypocrite" and "hypocrisy", not to mention the basic definition of Webster's, Strong's and Thayer's of "dissimulate" or the underlying Greek word is also "hypocrisy". (Incidentally, if Brother Bob is not caring about the definition 'apart from the Bible' how does he know that the word has only been around from the 15th century?? I've not even seen that, and I did look at hard copies for that info. And, considering the KJV did not even appear until the early 17th Century, something is not exactly adding up here, IMO.)], and in the second instance, as to when one book was written in relation to another. Well Peter and/or Paul were there, in both these instances, and Peter (and the Holy Spirit) had something to say, both about "being there", and Paul's writings. Peter defined (at least some of) Paul's Epistles AS Scripture; and also said that the Scriptures (the Word of Prophecy) were a better witness than even eyewitness testimony and he, an Apostle, WAS there. (II Pet. 1:16-21; 3:14-15)

I'm gonna' go along with Peter on this one!

And I'm also going to :sleeping_2:

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Sorry. Can't let this pass, either.Romans 4 says absolutely nothing about calling any "godly man" be it David or another, a false and ungodly teacher.
And given that Paul, here quotes David (Ps:32:1-2), and cites what Scripture says about Abraham (Gen. 15:6), to show that God imputes our faith, apart from any 'works,' I suggest whoever actually said this, (for I cannot tell for sure with whom this originated, in the convoluted post with three sets of quotes) should seriously consider 'recanting' this last two sentences, starting with "Yes it is.", in its entirety.

Further, I suggest the real "false and ungodly teacher" here, is one who refuses to accept this Biblical declaration, in Rom. 4, that God does impute to us this righteousness, apart from any works we do, and James does not 'contravene' this statement, about Abraham, either, but James is telling us that Abraham "fulfilled" this previous Scriptural declaration, in showing his faith before man, by the offering of Isaac, which event transpired some 30 years after God had declared Abraham as righteous. (Gen. 15:6; 22:1-19; Rom. 4:1- 5:5; Gal. 3:1-9; Jas. 2:1-26)

And as it relates to this thread, does not Apollos speak to this, and James also ask - Uh - How did Rahab get into the 'Hall of Fame of Faith', and be justified before man?

Guess what! It was by lying, among other things, and you might wanna' sometime read all of Joshua chapters 2 and 6, Ps. 87:3-5, and then Matt. 1:5 to get all "The Rest of the Story." We've touched on the first parts, only.Oh yeah, couple or three more itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, insignificant, minuscule, annoying, trivial things of no real importance, here - (Or so it appears that some think about the actual wording that Scripture uses, anyway.)

The word of God never says anyplace that either David or Rahab "repented of (their) sins", or that Rahab "used to be a pr*stit#te", in any Scripture that I've read, regardless of your or my personal opinion.

It does say that David 'confessed' his sin, however, to get back into the proper 'fellowship' with God. {The relationship of David and God [just as the relationship of 'the two sons with the father,' whom Jesus knew, BTW (but chose not to identify), and spoke of in the account (It is not a parable.) found in Lk. 15:11-32] never changed, however the 'fellowship' of God anad David "sure took a beating."} (II Sam. 11:13; Ps. 51: esp. vs. 3-4)

Second, while I so not believe that David was "indwelt" with the Holy Spirit, as we are "indwelt" in the 'church age', he certainly "had" the Holy Spirit, else his asking God not take it from him, makes absolutely no sense. (Ps. 52:11) Not to even mention that Jesus specifically said David spoke by the Holy Spirit (Mk. 12:36), Apollos says the Holy Spirit 'spoke' "in David" (Heb. 3:7 cp. 4:7), and the Holy Spirit is said to be "upon" someone, well over 30 times in the OT, so I suggest these Scriptures are telling us that there was some way, that David "had" the Holy Spirit.

Finally, I noticed where Brother Bob twice mentioned 'not being there', in two instances; in one instance- regarding both Peter's hypocrisy at Antioch [yes, hypocrisy is exactly what word rendered in the KJV as "dissimulation" means, and the more than 300 scholars of the ESV, HCSB, NKJV, NIV, AMP, NCV, TNIV, NLT, MLB, and NASB, every scholar of which has most likely forgotten more about the Greek language in the last month than I will ever know in my entire life, all collectively render the words as "hypocrite" and "hypocrisy", not to mention the basic definition of Webster's, Strong's and Thayer's of "dissimulate" or the underlying Greek word is also "hypocrisy". (Incidentally, if Brother Bob is not caring about the definition 'apart from the Bible' how does he know that the word has only been around from the 15th century?? I've not even seen that, and I did look at hard copies for that info. And, considering the KJV did not even appear until the early 17th Century, something is not exactly adding up here, IMO.)], and in the second instance, as to when one book was written in relation to another. Well Peter and/or Paul were there, in both these instances, and Peter (and the Holy Spirit) had something to say, both about "being there", and Paul's writings. Peter defined (at least some of) Paul's Epistles AS Scripture; and also said that the Scriptures (the Word of Prophecy) were a better witness than even eyewitness testimony and he, an Apostle, WAS there. (II Pet. 1:16-21; 3:14-15)

I'm gonna' go along with Peter on this one!

And I'm also going to :sleeping_2:

Ed

Speaking by the Holy Spirit and being Indwelt with the Holy Spirit, is a great difference and you know it.
Also, I see you used Webster, then go look when the word orginated, it will tell you without bios. 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.

The try and compare today with Rahab and David is like comparing apples and oranges, for if what they had and how they lived was satisfactory with God, I can tell you for assurety that Jesus would not of died on the cross. You and others continue to refer to David and others under the Law Covenant, which was to the flesh. God today does not see the fleshly worshipper, but rather those who worship Him in Spirit and Truth. It is quite a difference, the blood has been shed, Jesus dwells in us along with the Holy Ghost.

If you want to live after the lives of all the concubines, stoning, eye for and eye, death to the adulterer, kill the fatted calve, read the Law on the Sabbath, remove the "new" Covenant and go back to the "Old", you and the others go to it. Don't use it to try and justify man today, Jesus said I tell you that in the old days it was an eye for and eye, but I tell you now to "love thy enemies".

You can preach to the choir and all those who live under the Law Covenant all you want, but leave me out.

Also, Peter withdrew himself from eating with the Gentiles. He had a reason for it and I do not care if the word has two meanings and you take the hypocrit and I take the "disassemble from". I still am not going to call God's Apostles "hypocrits". You do as you like. Next Sunday, get up and tell the whole house that God's Apostles were hypocrits, spread the message, that should make you feel really proud of yourself. God may shed a tear or two though.

You read the word hypocrit from the fifteenth century, before that it was Peter withdrew himself from the Gentiles and some of the rest followed.

How you or anyone else, can put yourself to "walk" a mile in the shoes of the Apostles, is beyond me. It amazes me how you and several others, question the actions of the Apostles, as if they don't come up to being "fit". They lived in fear of their natural lives every day. You do not live in fear of your natural life for being a Christian, and neither do the others. How can you question their actions, when you are under the great protection of the "Constitution" of the United States and not out defending your natural life, while you speak all these posts on BB.

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.


BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

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?

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

BBob,

 

[steaver]

How you or anyone else, can put yourself to "walk" a mile in the shoes of the Apostles, is beyond me.

According to your view of the sinlessness of the believer, the Apostles were perfect as pertaining to the law and you along with every other genuine believer are perfect as pertaining to the law. So it doesn't matter how "tuff" a believer has it, they all remain perfect!

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.

Your lost on this one brother. "dissemble" means "hypocrisy". There is not any "two different" definitions or possibilities. When you say you will take "dissembled" you are saying you take "hypocrisy". Ask any English or Greek scholars, it's like you saying 2+2 could equal 5.

Peter committed an act of hypocrisy. This is the facts of the scripture. You can bear a false witness all day long to your congregation and say that he did not, but the facts do not change. Why not honour God's word and teach it like it is? No matter how noble your intentions, you are still distorting God's word.

 

[steaver]

HP: How can you say that you preach against sin if in fact you remove the penalty for sin?? Law without penalty may be good advice or council, but is no law at all. Sin is the transgression of the law and God has mandated the penalty of eternal separation from God as the only penalty. You deny that possibility for those that believe, even so far as to say it is impossible for God to hold a believer accountable to the law for sins committed subsequent to forgiveness for sins that are past. Sins that are past and are repented of are the only sins Scripture states that are under the blood. Without repentance there is no remission of sins. You teach that in spite of anything and everything, ‘OSAS,’ ;a doctrine foreign to the Word of God and at antipodes with ‘preaching against sin.’ By teaching that sin cannot separate one from God if they have once believed, you are effectively preaching salvation is a license to sin with impunity.

To refute what I have stated, show us one place in the Word of God that tells the believer that the penalty for sin in the life of the believer is simply loss of rewards. Is that not precisely what you teach?

Let the reader make no mistake. Anyone that removes the Scriptural penalty for sin even in the life of the professing believer apart from the fulfilling of the conditions God has mandated for forgiveness, which includes true repentance, is not ‘preaching passionately against sin.’

Nice speech, however this thread is about "Christians don't sin". Do you believe this?

So far everyone who has posted does not, with the exception of BBob, who says he will stand alone no matter what he is shown and he has been shown much.

 

[Brother Bob]

Nice speech, however this thread is about "Christians don't sin". Do you believe this?

So far everyone who has posted does not, with the exception of BBob, who says he will stand alone no matter what he is shown and he has been shown much.

This is a lie, if you are going to quote me, at least get it right. I have never ever said a Christian cannot sin.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

According to your view of the sinlessness of the believer, the Apostles were perfect as pertaining to the law and you along with every other genuine believer are perfect as pertaining to the law. So it doesn't matter how "tuff" a believer has it, they all remain perfect!



Your lost on this one brother. "dissemble" means "hypocrisy". There is not any "two different" definitions or possibilities. When you say you will take "dissembled" you are saying you take "hypocrisy". Ask any English or Greek scholars, it's like you saying 2+2 could equal 5.

Peter committed an act of hypocrisy. This is the facts of the scripture. You can bear a false witness all day long to your congregation and say that he did not, but the facts do not change. Why not honour God's word and teach it like it is? No matter how noble your intentions, you are still distorting God's word.

The word was derived from Latin and it can mean "conceal or hide". As I said, Peter withdrew because he did not want to be seen with the Gentiles. That is all the scripture says. the word hypocrit was added in the fifteenth century.

I have never ever said the Apostles were perfect either. Before they were indwelt with the Holy Ghost. They did give their lives for the word. They were chosen of the Lord as His's Apostles, They did raise the dead, make the lame to walk.

You Sir, attempt to bring them down equal to you, and the Apostles were far above you or I.

How many dead have you raised lately. Amazing the raised the dead and you call them a hypocrit.

They gave their lives for the word, and you call them a hypocrit. Truly amazing.

Job 13:16He also [shall be] my salvation: for an hypocrite shall not come before him.

Job 27:8For what [is] the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?

You sir, have cut them out of Heaven also, along with me.

BBob,

 

[trustitl]

Bob,

You either struggle with reading comprehension or are blinded to what Paul wrote about Peter because of your doctrine. I am choosing to think it is the former although the longer this goes on I fear the latter.

Here is the text:

Gal. 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, 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?"

You seem unwilling to admit that Peter did anything wrong in this situation. Notice how Paul "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed". It is clear that Peter was doing something that Paul saw as wrong. What needs to be figured out is WHAT was he doing that was wrong.

Peter was eating with Gentiles when some Jews came from where James was (most likely Jerusalem). When they arrived Peter "withdrew and separated himself" because was "fearing them which were of the circumcision". That is right, the Apostle Peter was guilty of fearing man. He wanted to appear to be something that he wasn't; supporter of their doctrine.

There were some "other Jews" that "dissembled likewise with him" along with Barnabas. You are trying to say that what Paul had a problem with was Peter separating himself from the situation. Peter separated himself because he was afraid of having the "the circumcision" see him eating with Gentiles.

These other Jews, along with Peter, were enjoying the liberty from the law in regards to dietary laws under Moses. But, when the circumcision came, they wanted to appear to be obeying the law. By doing this Peter was supporting the false teaching that Gentiles needed to be under Moses even though he himself knew better. This is the "dissimulation" that is being addressed.

 

[steaver]

This is a lie, if you are going to quote me, at least get it right. I have never ever said a Christian cannot sin.

BBob,

BBob, it is well established that you believe there is sin that does not transgress the law. This however, is not taught anywhere in scripture. ALL sin is the transgression of the law, it is your job to recognize and understand and teach believers what law they are breaking. To teach believers they may sin without transgressing the law is giving them a license to do certain sins, which of course you cannot tell them what these sins are, you say God will show them. This is not teaching at all.

Name one of these so called "non-law sins" and I will show you how that sin breaks a commandment of God from the Word of God.

 

[steaver]

Here is the text:

Gal. 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, 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?"

You seem unwilling to admit that Peter did anything wrong in this situation. Notice how Paul "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed". It is clear that Peter was doing something that Paul saw as wrong. What needs to be figured out is WHAT was he doing that was wrong.

Peter was eating with Gentiles when some Jews came from where James was (most likely Jerusalem). When they arrived Peter "withdrew and separated himself" because was "fearing them which were of the circumcision". That is right, the Apostle Peter was guilty of fearing man. He wanted to appear to be something that he wasn't; supporter of their doctrine.

There were some "other Jews" that "dissembled likewise with him" along with Barnabas. You are trying to say that what Paul had a problem with was Peter separating himself from the situation. Peter separated himself because he was afraid of having the "the circumcision" see him eating with Gentiles.

These other Jews, along with Peter, were enjoying the liberty from the law in regards to dietary laws under Moses. But, when the circumcision came, they wanted to appear to be obeying the law. By doing this Peter was supporting the false teaching that Gentiles needed to be under Moses even though he himself knew better. This is the "dissimulation" that is being addressed.

Look out brother! When ever someone post the truth that he cannot except you are about to get a "so you can die on top of your neighbours wife and go to heaven"?

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

How many dead have you raised lately.

Actually, God is no respector of persons. God did the actual raising from the dead. The Apostles were just men like you and I who God gave special gifts to as He sees fit. If God were to give us this gift then we would raise men from the dead BY THE POWER OF GOD because He said so.

 

[trustitl]

The word was derived from Latin and it can mean "conceal or hide". As I said, Peter withdrew because he did not want to be seen with the Gentiles. That is all the scripture says. the word hypocrit was added in the fifteenth century.

Can you you tell me what Peter wanted to "conceal or hide" and why?

I have never ever said the Apostles were perfect either.

Can you tell me one of their imperfections? You seem to be making them out to be ordinary guys.

You Sir, attempt to bring them down equal to you, and the Apostles were far above you or I.

Equal? No, I'm 6'5" and 225 pounds. The same in the sense that we are mere men who have been redeemed by the blood of the lamb and called to live by faith? Yes.

You sir, have cut them out of Heaven also, along with me.

No Bob, and that is the whole point that is trying to be made.

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob,

You either struggle with reading comprehension or are blinded to what Paul wrote about Peter because of your doctrine. I am choosing to think it is the former although the longer this goes on I fear the latter.

Here is the text:

Gal. 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, 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?"

You seem unwilling to admit that Peter did anything wrong in this situation. Notice how Paul "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed". It is clear that Peter was doing something that Paul saw as wrong. What needs to be figured out is WHAT was he doing that was wrong.

Peter was eating with Gentiles when some Jews came from where James was (most likely Jerusalem). When they arrived Peter "withdrew and separated himself" because was "fearing them which were of the circumcision". That is right, the Apostle Peter was guilty of fearing man. He wanted to appear to be something that he wasn't; supporter of their doctrine.

There were some "other Jews" that "dissembled likewise with him" along with Barnabas. You are trying to say that what Paul had a problem with was Peter separating himself from the situation. Peter separated himself because he was afraid of having the "the circumcision" see him eating with Gentiles.

These other Jews, along with Peter, were enjoying the liberty from the law in regards to dietary laws under Moses. But, when the circumcision came, they wanted to appear to be obeying the law. By doing this Peter was supporting the false teaching that Gentiles needed to be under Moses even though he himself knew better. This is the "dissimulation" that is being addressed.

You fail to realize that it was a time of transition from the Law to the Grace Covenant. For some reason, Peter felt it best for him to withdraw from eating with the uncircusion. That is what scripture says, I defy you to read to me the word hypocrit.

If you add to the scripture the plagues that are written therein shall be added to you.

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

 

[Brother Bob]

Actually, God is no respector of persons. God did the actual raising from the dead. The Apostles were just men like you and I who God gave special gifts to as He sees fit. If God were to give us this gift then we would raise men from the dead BY THE POWER OF GOD because He said so.

So, they raised no one from the dead, by any means? This gets thicker and thicker.

Act 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

Act 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing [him] said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Can you you tell me what Peter wanted to "conceal or hide" and why?

Can you tell me one of their imperfections? You seem to be making them out to be ordinary guys.

Equal? No, I'm 6'5" and 225 pounds. The same in the sense that we are mere men who have been redeemed by the blood of the lamb and called to live by faith? Yes.

No Bob, and that is the whole point that is trying to be made.

He did not want to be seen with the Gentiles, was there something wrong with that. I do not know. I sure do not believe it made Peter a hypocrite.

The Apostles had more power than we have and if you do not understand that from scripture, you lack in something.

I do not feel equal with the Apostles, more power to you. You will need it.

As I said though, I feel better now that I know that its not only me you wish to bring down, you also go after the Apostles.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

BBob, it is well established that you believe there is sin that does not transgress the law. This however, is not taught anywhere in scripture. ALL sin is the transgression of the law, it is your job to recognize and understand and teach believers what law they are breaking. To teach believers they may sin without transgressing the law is giving them a license to do certain sins, which of course you cannot tell them what these sins are, you say God will show them. This is not teaching at all.

Name one of these so called "non-law sins" and I will show you how that sin breaks a commandment of God from the Word of God.

I did not give it to men, scripture says there is a sin not unto death. I know if you break one of the Commandments and do not repent, it will bring you the second death.

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

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Look out brother! When ever someone post the truth that he cannot except you are about to get a "so you can die on top of your neighbours wife and go to heaven"?

:jesus:

You are the one who believes you can die on top of your neighbor's wife and go to heaven, not me. I think it is the devil's doctrine..

BBob,

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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. It is as if though their whole point in life is to build up sin and prove everyman a sinner instead of purifying their heart by faith until they can say with the Apostle Paul, “BEING MADE FREE FROM SIN.” It as if though the end of the gospel message, setting forth the blood of Christ and grace, is to make all men active sinners instead of setting them free from sin in this present world.

Eternity will prove if in fact some are simply are trying to vainly provide cover for sins of their own. The following Scripture comes to mind in a vivid way. I trust such is not the case for those, who by reasonable observation of the listener, find it impossible not to at least consider that there might be some are some on this list that might in fact be trying to coddle sin in such a way as to be actively be in the process of quieting their own conscience by the belittling of godly examples in the Word of God.

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.

 

[trustitl]

HP,

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

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?

Do you agree with Bob that is it impossible for the Apostles to have failed, even to the point of sinning? My desire to have this understood has nothing to do with "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness" nor am I "trying to vainly provide cover for sins" that I am committing as you implied.

I see the Christian life as one in which we are born again and start as little children and mature in our faith. Part of this growth is understanding that we are free from the power of sin and that we are to be "transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom 12:2) This is a response to the mercies of God, not a requirement for it (see Rom. 12:1).

This growth is why Paul wrote letters to the churches such as Colosse.

Col. 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

Our salvation is not gained by works nor is it kept by works. Paul told the Colossians that they needed to "continue in the faith grounded and settled" the goal being that he could "present every man perfect in Christ Jesus". This perfection is not sinlessness, but rather that our faith would be perfected so we would "be not moved away from the hope of the gospel (Col 1:23).

God leaves us here in these bodies of flesh, not to see if he can catch us in a sin but rather because our faith is so precious to Him and is the source from which our worship flows.

"the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 1:7).

Part of this testing is seeing if we believe that sin no longer has dominion over us: a teaching sadly lacking in today's churches. Most of the teachers that are "hard on sin" have believers bound by a sinful nature that will keep them in a life of sin. This is heresy and causes many to give up on living a life pleasing to God.

I see the teaching that certain sins can prove we are not believers as the perfect tool for "wolves in sheep's clothing" to move people away from our hope. That is where I am not a OSAS teacher for I take the warnings that scripture is full of very seriously. But, if you look closely the warnings are about us keeping the faith, not about sinning and losing our salvation. Keeping the faith will result in "being fruitful in every good work" (Col. 1:10).

The teachers who turn "the grace of our God into lasciviousness" are a weapon against those who do not love the Lord and only want to satisfy the lusts of the flesh. However, sincere believers are susceptible to the teaching that believers do not sin certain types of sins. This is along the lines of the "doctrines of devils" that Paul warned Timothy about.

 

[steaver]

That is what scripture says, I defy you to read to me the word hypocrit.

Strong's 4942...sunupokrinomai...to act hypocritically in concert with-dissemble with.

There are NO choices. One definition is given.

Latin and English cannot change the original Greek, nor does it. Your postion is ERROR!

Readem and weep! Or rather repent raying: