• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Love requires choice?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
I was actually trying to show why it is difficult not to sin. I knew that word would offend you, I said it on purpose. That said, you did not have to let it offend you, you did not have to get angry.

You could have laughed, I said it tongue in cheek. That is why I showed the laughing smiley.
I rarely use icons. Perhaps you haven't noticed that.
Using sinful language is sinning. Breaking the rules is the same as breaking God's law. Study Romans 13. As you study Romans 13 be sure to study about God's law of love.
Where did I get angry. Enforcing rules is not being angry. Now you are assuming things that are not true.
 

Winman

Active Member
Again, if not by obeying the law of God, how then exactly do these that you theorize of remaining sinless, do so?

How does one remain sinless and NOT keep the law?

I do not believe anyone who reaches the age of accountability will keep the law. In fact, I believe babies start breaking the law LONG before they are able to understand right from wrong and are accountable.

I remember my nephew used to bite folks when he was maybe a year old. You would be sitting in a chair and he would come up and chomp on your arm! OWW! He could really bite too! I wanted to slap the little guy. But he was just a little baby and did not really understand what he was doing. He grew into a very fine man that everyone likes. But what a biter!

So, babies do wrong, but I do not believe they are held accountable because they do not understand their actions. And by the time a child is old enough to really understand ( I think around 8-10 years old in general), they have already broken many laws like lying.

So, there is no mature person who is sinless. Only babies and very small children are sinless. That doesn't mean they always keep the law, such as my nephew.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Both are true. It is always possible for a good pitcher to strike out his opponent.
And it is always possible for the batter to hit the ball while at the same time he is being struck out. Lots of sense there.
It is a good analogy, because in reality it really is possible to get a hit every time. Even horrible pitches can be hit, Yogi Berra was famous for hitting bad pitches. He said, "If I can hit it, then it is a good pitch."
And at the same time he can hit it, he can be struck out, right?
But the point is, we never HAVE to sin. We choose to sin. Sure, somebody like me can insult you and you have a good reason to lose your cool, nevertheless, you are still responsible for how you handle yourself.
But you haven't been. I have even had to edit one of your posts. You prove yourself wrong. You choose to sin. Why? Why then are you being irresponsible? You don't make any sense.
And even things like being tired can make a difference. If I am well rested, I can handle people who are aggravating quite well. But if I am tired I tend to lose my temper easily. Nevertheless, I still do not have to sin.
A contradiction here. Yes, God will hold you responsible--even for "unintentional sins," as Lev.4:1-4 describes. You are still responsible.
Rom.3:23 describes how you miss the mark of God's holiness every day. Every day you sin. You don't like that concept. But you are not as holy as God is. That in itself is sin. You need a proper view of the sinfulness of man and the holiness of God.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That's ridiculous. Jesus would only have died for nought if every person lived a sinless life, which nobody who reaches the age of accountability has or will ever do.

These are very poor arguments.

….if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought. Gal 2:21

….if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. Gal 3:21

Poor arguments? Your shallowness keeps becoming ever more apparent.

Again, if not by obeying the law of God, how then exactly do these that you theorize of remaining sinless, do so?

How does one remain sinless and NOT keep the law?
 

Winman

Active Member
And it is always possible for the batter to hit the ball while at the same time he is being struck out. Lots of sense there.

Both are true. It is possible for him to hit the ball, but it is also possible for him to miss. You must have never played ball. Maybe we should talk hockey. :laugh:

And at the same time he can hit it, he can be struck out, right?

Actually, if you have two strikes and foul tip the ball and the catcher catches it, you strike out. FACT. You hit it AND struck out.

But you haven't been. I have even had to edit one of your posts. You prove yourself wrong. You choose to sin. Why? Why then are you being irresponsible? You don't make any sense.

YES! I chose to sin! You are starting to get it now. I chose to sin! I did it on purpose. Nobody made me sin. I did it to aggravate you, and it worked. I was demonstating how the world tempts us to sin. I sinned by insulting you, my insult aggravated you. If you had really been paying attention you would have realized I was playing with you. It was a joke, but I knew it would aggravate you. Worked like a charm. :thumbs:

A contradiction here. Yes, God will hold you responsible--even for "unintentional sins," as Lev.4:1-4 describes. You are still responsible.
Rom.3:23 describes how you miss the mark of God's holiness every day. Every day you sin. You don't like that concept. But you are not as holy as God is. That in itself is sin. You need a proper view of the sinfulness of man and the holiness of God.

Well, I don't exactly understand all those unintentional sins in scripture. I guess it's like speeding when there are no signs, they say ignorance is no excuse.

Nevertheless, you didn't HAVE to commit those sins. If you had known the particular law you broke, then you could have chosen not to commit it.

It is not like when I called you a name. I did that on purpose. I could have done otherwise, but I thought it would be fun. And it was.
 

Winman

Active Member
Probably the most pertinent post on this thread.
Yes, and I gave a pertinent answer, that Charles Hodge, a very famous and notable Reformed theologian believed Jesus could have committed sin.

Originally Posted by Charles Hodge

“This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocations; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people.”

So, my views are not unusual or unorthodox at all.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Produce some notable theologians that agree with your premise that man is capable of living a sinless life.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You say Christ was capable of sinning. Man is capable of not ever sinning.

Does that sum it up correctly Winman?
 

Winman

Active Member
Produce some notable theologians that agree with your premise that man is capable of living a sinless life.

The Bible does not address possibility, only the reality that every man has sinned.

Now, I would say that a command not to sin implies the possibility to obey that command. If so, then 1 John 2:1 and many other scriptures teach that a man does not have to sin.

1 Jhn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

John here commands us not to sin. I happen to believe that God would not give us a commandment that is impossible to obey.

And note that John says, and "if" we sin, which implies that we do not have to sin. It is not set in stone. Yes, it is possible to sin, but it is also possible to refrain from sin.

Other than the word of God, I can't think of theologians who believe this, most of your famous theologians are Calvinists. They all think we HAVE to sin.

Bet they wouldn't be able to name a sin they HAD to commit though, no one here has come up with anything yet. :laugh:
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You say Christ was capable of sinning. Man is capable of not ever sinning.

Does that sum it up correctly Winman?
 

Winman

Active Member
You say Christ was capable of sinning. Man is capable of not ever sinning.

Does that sum it up correctly Winman?

1) Man can sin.

Christ was a man.

Christ could sin.

2) No man has to sin.

Christ was a man.

Christ never sinned.

Refute this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top