Sins a Christian cannot commit...

[Brother Bob]

Hi Brother Bob;
I gather from your answer that you believe that to sin a sin unto death means your are once again lost. Does this mean no more Grace?
You see those sins that are deadly I have been guilty of since I came to Christ. Especially adultry with in my own thoughts. Seems once a man is offered an adultress relationship with an attractive lady that while he may control himself outwardly, Inwardly he has already commited the adultry with her in his thoughts. It only takes a split second. once you have imagined it, you've sinned.
The whole thing wasn't about me being irresistable, but instead was her attempt at manipulating me. I know I have to be careful about this sort of thing but it's not as uncommon as one might think.
Like most of the sin I have commited they are with in my own mind. I'm not proud of this but, it's true. There is such a fine line between the temptation and the sin at times that it's hard to tell where the temptation leaves off and the lust begins.
I have to disagree with you on your theology because of this;
1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Another that disagrees with you is Paul;

Gal 2:16 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.
Gal 2:17 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.
Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Gal 2:20 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.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

It puzzles me how we can loose something that is kept by the power of God. That something, being the righteousness of Christ the faith of Christ. and most important our Salvation which depended entirely on Christ for me to have and to keep.
Is sin as powerful as God? Didn't His Son over come death?
Yet I'm wretched. The only way I can explain this is that same way Paul explained it.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Rom 8:1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
MB

I think you have set a standard for yourself that Christ did not set. To look at a woman and think she is pretty is not lust. Sometimes I look at a woman and think that she is ugly, is that unlust? To give in to those thoughts and begin to lust and really want that woman, is lust. God was more gracious than that with the woman caught in actual adultery, he told her to go and sin no more. She was not a saved person, but seems to me she was after Jesus forgive her, and told her to sin no more.
I think you misunderstood what I said. There are people among us who are not saved but are called a brother and sister and Jesus said there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed, or your sins will find you out. Those people who do such sins, are not kept by the power of God, or they would not do them, so they were never saved, but "playing" church. I would advise anyone who is "playing" church to get out, make it right with God and repent and then go home and tell the brothers what good things the Lord has done for you.
I get the feeling you are not going to agree with me and for that, it saddens me, for I believe God's children are a pecurliar people, zealous of good works. Paul said, we are not of them who draw back unto perdition. What else can I say. If you are willing to die on your condition, then who am I to question you. Every man will stand before God for himself, and not another. All I can do is tell you to set your house in order, while you can, if you think its not really in order. I think you already know what you need to do without asking me, I sense it in you posts. I pray you and God work things out if there is a problem.

Really read the following passage.

Gal 2:17 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.


BBob,

 

[DHK]

Gal 2:4And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

They called every one of them brothers, but they were false brethren.

This proves my point DHK;

I have called several brothers in my time, who are no longer with us, some of them just plain drunks and adulterers.

BBob,

The church at Galatia is not the church at Corinth. Why take Scripture out of context to try and prove a point, an unscriptural point at that? You have not proved anything, except that you have an ability to take Scripture out of its context.

Not once was the brother mentioned in 1Cor.5 called a false brother. Demonstrate that he was, otherwise you are committing the sin of adding to the Word of God, and not rightly dividing the word of truth. You cannot argue from a position of silence, and you cannot insert things that are not there.

You are no better than the Catholics who "prove" infant baptism by claiming that there were infants in the jailor's household (Acts 16:31). They make the same argument you make--an argument from silence.

The fact is that the brother in 1Cor.5 is called a brother which means a saint, a believer in Christ, a "holy one," even if he did a very unholy act. He still was holy in the sight of God. When God looked down upon that believer he didn't see his sin of incest, he saw that believer clothed with righteousness of Jesus Christ. His sin was put under the blood of Christ, never to remembered any more.

If you believe differently, Bob, then you don't believe in a message of salvation by grace through faith. You believe in a religion of works, which is not Christianity.

 

[Brother Bob]

I have bolded the part of your post that makes absolutely no sense to me. Let's stay away from soap-opera theatrics, here.

I will agree with you that Charles has been quite gracious and kind...more so than you, I might add. But if...if there is a problem between Charles and me (to my knowledge there isn't), shouldn't that be between Charles and me? Why insert yourself into the equation?

I believe in apologizing for one's wrongdoing. But I also believe in not cheapening's one apology by apologziing when it is not necessary. Perhaps you'd like to point out where my statements have warranted an apology.

Furthermore, I will say I hold no ill will towards you. I hate it that you're so upset. But that's your choice to be so. I'm fine, and hope you will be as well.

To that end, I feel it necessary to publish the text of the PM I sent you earlier, explaining many of my thoughts in this thread. You claimed I offered no Scripture for my position (which, after reading below, all will see is not the case). I will continue to defend what I see as unfounded claims that suggest I look for ways to give people a "license to sin." (I don't). Sorry that you take it so personally. I just want people to understand what I see as a Biblical position.



Now, if you disagree that's fine. If it makes you mad, that's OK too. But now, at least, the entirety of my position is understood.

Have a blessed day, Bro Bob. :wavey:

soap-opera theatrics, Also, so much for the privacy of a PM. Why does this not surprise me. This is a beginning of your misdoings.

You started this thread with my quotes. You copied and pasted my quoted on this thread, which is against BB rules.

You then said "I knew you couldn't stay away", which goes to show you simply set up this thread to try and get me in to more arguing, which certainly is not Christian.

You complained on "feetwashing" thread and got it shut down. You denied it to me that you had contacted a moderator, then you had to admit you did. So you admitted to lying here on BB, that you got a thread "shut down" and then started another thread on the exact same subject, using my posts from "feet washing" to do so. I stayed out of your thread, because I knew you set it up just to argue with me, but then you begin to brag how your new thread had cooled things down, which I found to be false also. It was Charles who apologized, because he wanted peace, not anything you had done. So I came on to set the record straight.
I do not understand why the moderators let you use my posts from another thread, to start this one for the purpose of malice, but I am just a member on here.

You do not surprise me at all, publishing the PM, but I said nothing I am ashame of, or would not say on here.

BBob, :BangHead:

 

[charles_creech78]

I think you have set a standard for yourself that Christ did not set. To look at a woman and think she is pretty is not lust. Sometimes I look at a woman and think that she is ugly, is that unlust? To give in to those thoughts and begin to lust and really want that woman, is lust. God was more gracious than that with the woman caught in actual adultery, he told her to go and sin no more. She was not a saved person, but seems to me she was after Jesus forgive her, and told her to sin no more.
I think you misunderstood what I said. There are people among us who are not saved but are called a brother and sister and Jesus said there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed, or your sins will find you out. Those people who do such sins, are not kept by the power of God, or they would not do them, so they were never saved, but "playing" church. I would advise anyone who is "playing" church to get out, make it right with God and repent and then go home and tell the brothers what good things the Lord has done for you.
I get the feeling you are not going to agree with me and for that, it saddens me, for I believe God's children are a pecurliar people, zealous of good works. Paul said, we are not of them who draw back unto perdition. What else can I say. If you are willing to die on your condition, then who am I to question you. Every man will stand before God for himself, and not another. All I can do is tell you to set your house in order, while you can, if you think its not really in order. I think you already know what you need to do without asking me, I sense it in you posts. I pray you and God work things out if there is a problem.

Really read the following passage.

Gal 2:17 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.


BBob,

amen brother Bob. They are justifing there sins by saying they have Christ. amen brother.

 

[tinytim]

Careful....
The way you believe, this verse could be dangerous to your eternity...

Matthew 5:21-22 NIV
(21) "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
(22) But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. ...

 

[Brother Bob]

The church at Galatia is not the church at Corinth. Why take Scripture out of context to try and prove a point, an unscriptural point at that? You have not proved anything, except that you have an ability to take Scripture out of its context.

Not once was the brother mentioned in 1Cor.5 called a false brother. Demonstrate that he was, otherwise you are committing the sin of adding to the Word of God, and not rightly dividing the word of truth. You cannot argue from a position of silence, and you cannot insert things that are not there.

You are no better than the Catholics who "prove" infant baptism by claiming that there were infants in the jailor's household (Acts 16:31). They make the same argument you make--an argument from silence.

The fact is that the brother in 1Cor.5 is called a brother which means a saint, a believer in Christ, a "holy one," even if he did a very unholy act. He still was holy in the sight of God. When God looked down upon that believer he didn't see his sin of incest, he saw that believer clothed with righteousness of Jesus Christ. His sin was put under the blood of Christ, never to remembered any more.

If you believe differently, Bob, then you don't believe in a message of salvation by grace through faith. You believe in a religion of works, which is not Christianity.

Then that would make all the false brethren at Gal "saints".

I know you know better than that. If there were false brethren at one place they were at all the churches, and are still today.

You fail to recognize one thing DHK; The churches in that day were in a time of transition. There were Jews there, there were Gentiles there, There were people there just to get the food. Most of them claimed to be true members, but Paul knew they were not and that is why he continued to work to get them to truly come to the Grace Covenant. They were all called brothers, when many of them were false. The one who committed incest, certainly was not a "true" member. I can see why you want him to be, to justify your theology, but he was just a wordly person, pretending to be a Christian. It seems to just be able to get at the women. :wavey:

You argument don't hold water DHK:

BBob,

 

[tinytim]

In Bob's previous post to rbell, Bob is apparently angry with his brother.. Jesus equates anger with your brother with murder...

 

[charles_creech78]

Careful....
The way you believe, this verse could be dangerous to your eternity...

Matthew 5:21-22 NIV
(21) "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
(22) But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. ...

Do you call it angry praying for your brother.

 

[DHK]

Then that would make all the false brethren at Gal "saints".

I know you know better than that. If there were false brethren at one place they were at all the churches, and are still today.

You fail to recognize one thing DHK; The churches in that day were in a time of transition. There were Jews there, there were Gentiles there, There were people there just to get the food. Most of them claimed to be true members, but Paul knew they were not and that is why he continued to work to get them to truly come to the Grace Covenant. They were all called brothers, when many of them were false. The one who committed incest, certainly was not a "true" member. I can see why you want him to be, to justify your theology, but he was just a wordly person, pretending to be a Christian. It seems to just be able to get at the women. :wavey:

You argument don't hold water DHK:

BBob,

Bob, your position is to call the Apostle Paul a liar. Paul said he was a brother, and you say he wasn't. Therefore you are calling the Apostle Paul a liar. Is that your position?

 

[charles_creech78]

In Bob's previous post to rbell, Bob is apparently angry with his brother.. Jesus equates anger with your brother with murder...

There are alot of post on here to me and seem like you was angry with me . BUT NNE WILL JUDGE YOU SO DON"T WORRY ABOUT IT.

 

[Brother Bob]

In Bob's previous post to rbell, Bob is apparently angry with his brother.. Jesus equates anger with your brother with murder...

There you go again, accusing a brother of something you do not know what is in his heart. Oh how hard you try to find something wrong with me, but that is what they all do. I am highly disappointed in rbell and others, for teaching Christians can committ such sins as we have been talking about.
Mad, I have heard all these arguments before, I know what you are going to say. Even you coming up with this does not surprise me, for you have nothing else to say. You are fishing in a dry well.

What rbell did that was really wrong was to get another thread shut down by complaining to a moderator, then starting another thread on the exact same subject, using my posts from the previous thread, which is against BB rules. He gets away with it though, where I and some others could not. He set up this thread, to try and continue to argue, instead of debating.

I have used scripture, others use name calling, such as liars, insinuate that some are dumb and need to go to school, make a mockery or fun of other posters, at their expense, all in the name of Christianity.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob, your position is to call the Apostle Paul a liar. Paul said he was a brother, and you say he wasn't. Therefore you are calling the Apostle Paul a liar. Is that your position?

As Obama says; we have entered the "silly' stage now.

BBob,

 

[DHK]

Let't examine the Scripture Bob.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
--In these verses Paul had written to them not to keep company with fornicators (vs.9).
But then he clarifies himself. He says that there is occasion where they must have some company with the fornicators, covetous, extortioners, and idolaters. The only place where one would completely avoid all such sinners is in heaven. So of course we are going to have interaction with sinners, both great and small.

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.
--Now he gets into the nitty-gritty, the details of whom exactly we can have fellowship and who we cannot. The man in question was a brother or believer, though he had committed an act of fornication. He tells them not to keep company with him, or any other brother or believer that is covetous, a railer, a drunkard, or an extortioner. These people, the church of God are to exercise discipline and to disfellowship, and having done so, not to have fellowship with them. They are saved. But once Biblical discipline is exercised according to Mat.18, then we should not have fellowship with them.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
--Here is the reason. We do not judge the sins of the ungodly or the unsaved. We leave that up to God. But the church (local church) does exercise judgment over its own members. We do exercise discipline over our own members. One doesn't become a member unless they are saved--at least that is the practice in our church, and should be in yours. An erring brother needs to be disciplined according to the steps outlined in Mat.18.

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

--Again Paul emphasizes that those that are without (the unsaved), God will judge; they are in the hands of God. But the local church must take care of its own. The one in 1Cor.5 was an erring brother, one of the saints. He was a Christian.
If he wasn't, by your standards, you are calling Paul a liar. That is all there is to it.

 

[rbell]

You complained on "feetwashing" thread and got it shut down.

This is a lie. I did not get it shut down. One, I don't have that power. Two, it's simply not true.

You denied it to me that you had contacted a moderator, then you had to admit you did.

This is also a lie. I told you up front I contacted a moderator regarding a post in which you used language that was IMO inappropriate for mixed company. This was also made clear to you. Please quit lying.

So you admitted to lying here on BB, that you got a thread "shut down" and then started another thread on the exact same subject, using my posts from "feet washing" to do so.

Lie number three. I did NOT shut your thread down. I did start this new thread. Why? Because...I wanted to discuss this issue further. I wanted to use your issues you brought up as a "jumping off" point for stuff that quite honestly, wasn't on-topic for the "feet-washing" thread. OUT OF RESPECT FOR YOU, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH BB RULES,I did not use your name. But your quotes WERE what spawned the thread. You find THAT offensive?!? People quote folks and start new discussions all the time here! If that bothers you, I would assert that the issue is not with my posting.

Nowhere have I slandered you. Sadly, you've attacked me. I'm sorry you feel the need to do that.

I stayed out of your thread, because I knew you set it up just to argue with me, but then you begin to brag how your new thread had cooled things down, which I found to be false also. It was Charles who apologized, because he wanted peace, not anything you had done. So I came on to set the record straight.

Wow. You just love to stir things up, don't you? Things were calmer in here because we were having mature discussions, without folks throwing out incindeary charges such as you have been edited for. Lie number four, at your service. And, you have continued to ignore this fact: I haven't done anything for which I should apologize.

By the way...I outgrew "bragging about how I brought peace to a thread" about age eleven. But thanks for the laugh...I thought the accusation was kinda humorous.

I do not understand why the moderators let you use my posts from another thread, to start this one for the purpose of malice, but I am just a member on here.

You do not surprise me at all, publishing the PM, but I said nothing I am ashame of, or would not say on here.

BBob,

Well, if you're ticked at the mods, then ask them. Being as the thread did not attack you, demean you, or name you...they don't seem to have a problem, nor do I.

And Brother Bob, I'm sorry you're ticked...and perhaps this is the place for an apology...but I published the PM because you were selectively leaving out important details (just as you are now). I wanted people to have the background for the nature of our discussion. If that's against the rules, then I'm sorry.

This post probably bothers me more than any of your other ones, because there are some outright falsehoods in this one. You've intentionally left out pertinent details to try and make me look bad. Fine. I'm not going to address it any more.

I'd love to continue the discussion, but mods, it would seem that chance to do so here is irreparably damaged. Maybe closure is in order. And if we are to continue this conversation...perhaps someone else should start the thread. :laugh: I seem be on a bad streak...offending people by starting new threads, and all...

Brother Bob, until yesterday, I thought we got along fine...and I'm still not sure why you've gotten so angry. But you're a brother in the Lord, and I wish you the best. Good day....I shall not address our issue any more on this thread.

 

[Brother Bob]

Let't examine the Scripture Bob.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
--In these verses Paul had written to them not to keep company with fornicators (vs.9).
But then he clarifies himself. He says that there is occasion where they must have some company with the fornicators, covetous, extortioners, and idolaters. The only place where one would completely avoid all such sinners is in heaven. So of course we are going to have interaction with sinners, both great and small.

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.
--Now he gets into the nitty-gritty, the details of whom exactly we can have fellowship and who we cannot. The man in question was a brother or believer, though he had committed an act of fornication. He tells them not to keep company with him, or any other brother or believer that is covetous, a railer, a drunkard, or an extortioner. These people, the church of God are to exercise discipline and to disfellowship, and having done so, not to have fellowship with them. They are saved. But once Biblical discipline is exercised according to Mat.18, then we should not have fellowship with them.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
--Here is the reason. We do not judge the sins of the ungodly or the unsaved. We leave that up to God. But the church (local church) does exercise judgment over its own members. We do exercise discipline over our own members. One doesn't become a member unless they are saved--at least that is the practice in our church, and should be in yours. An erring brother needs to be disciplined according to the steps outlined in Mat.18.

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

--Again Paul emphasizes that those that are without (the unsaved), God will judge; they are in the hands of God. But the local church must take care of its own. The one in 1Cor.5 was an erring brother, one of the saints. He was a Christian.
If he wasn't, by your standards, you are calling Paul a liar. That is all there is to it.

You are right Paul said God would judge them which are without, and told the church to put him "without" where he belonged, for he was only "called" a brother, but in reality he was a fornicator.

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.

Why did it not say "that is a brother" DHK?

I am being as courteous as I know how, so don't know one start saying I am mad or discourteous.

I am giving scripture as alway, if it cuts, then the word does cut.

BBob,

 

[Outsider]

I for one am glad this thread got started. I have struggled with this issue for a long time. I also feel that if we all stop "nit picking" at each other, we may be able to help others who also have struggled with this issue. It seems that we get so involved in our own feelings, that we forget the issue and just try to prove we are right. I am very guilty of this myself. But anytime we reult to attacking another it is wrong and it usually means you are loosing the argument.

I have always been taught what brother Bob and brother Charles are teaching. It has merit. No one is saying (I don't think) that you lose your salvation, but rather if you commit these acts, it is evidence that you were never truley born again and setteling on a false hope. We have to admit, there is scripture that alludes to this. If we say there is not, then we are fooling ourselves.

There is also scriptures that allude to a Christian committing sins. In Paul's writtings, he tells various churches to "Stop being like the world" (My words), Jesus even tells churches in Revelations to return to their first love, etc...

I have several questions that I would like everyone's opinion on.
1. Where do you draw the line? Can it be cut and dry? A lie is a sin and so is adultry. Why can a Christian commit one and not the other? God is Holy and demands that we are to be Holy. Where is that line?

2. If a person claims to be a Christian, and they do commit adultry or a murder, if they do it one time or two times and then stop, and do not continue in it, does this classify them as an adultress or a murderer? Again, where is the line drawn. Is once enough?

Friends, I am asked these questions and I am interested in your input. My feelings are this: I would have no confidence in a person that performs these acts as a Christian. But I am unable to draw the line. I view a sin as a sin and we are all unworthy.
Please give me your thoughts. This is a very good issue that seperates a lot of Christians and does, at times, give false hope to nominal believers.

 

[DHK]

You are right Paul said God would judge them which are without, and told the church to put him "without" where he belonged, for he was only "called" a brother, but in reality he was a fornicator.

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.

I am being as courteous as I know how, so don't know one start saying I am mad or discourteous.

I am giving scripture as alway, if it cuts, then the word does cut.

BBob,

You are cutting the word up. Instead of rightly dividing your wrongly butchering it.
Paul contrasts those that are without to those that are within.
He contrasts those that God will judge to those that the church should judge.
He contrasts the unbelievers to the believers;
He contrasts the world to the church.
He contrasts the Gentiles to the believers.

All throughout there is a stark contrast.
And yet you want to call a believer an unbeliever and make Paul a liar; make the Holy Spirit a liar. I heard one poster on this board call that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that assessment, but I do know that it is a serious charge when you call the Apostle Paul who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit a liar. For it is Paul himself that indicates that this man is a brother. If you believe otherwise you contradict Paul and make him a liar.

 

[Brother Bob]

You are cutting the word up. Instead of rightly dividing your wrongly butchering it.
Paul contrasts those that are without to those that are within.
He contrasts those that God will judge to those that the church should judge.
He contrasts the unbelievers to the believers;
He contrasts the world to the church.
He contrasts the Gentiles to the believers.

All throughout there is a stark contrast.
And yet you want to call a believer an unbeliever and make Paul a liar; make the Holy Spirit a liar. I heard one poster on this board call that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that assessment, but I do know that it is a serious charge when you call the Apostle Paul who writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit a liar. For it is Paul himself that indicates that this man is a brother. If you believe otherwise you contradict Paul and make him a liar.

DHK; just answer why Paul did not call him a brother, but said one that is "called" a brother. You are misreading the passage. Paul could of called him a brother and said there is one among you that "is" a brother, but Paul did not say that. He said: one among you that is "called" a brother. A big difference.

If you said to me: You have one among you that is called a brother. A red flag would go up at once, why would you say he is just "called" a brother.

BBob,

 

[charles_creech78]

I for one am glad this thread got started. I have struggled with this issue for a long time. I also feel that if we all stop "nit picking" at each other, we may be able to help others who also have struggled with this issue. It seems that we get so involved in our own feelings, that we forget the issue and just try to prove we are right. I am very guilty of this myself. But anytime we reult to attacking another it is wrong and it usually means you are loosing the argument.

I have always been taught what brother Bob and brother Charles are teaching. It has merit. No one is saying (I don't think) that you lose your salvation, but rather if you commit these acts, it is evidence that you were never truley born again and setteling on a false hope. We have to admit, there is scripture that alludes to this. If we say there is not, then we are fooling ourselves.

There is also scriptures that allude to a Christian committing sins. In Paul's writtings, he tells various churches to "Stop being like the world" (My words), Jesus even tells churches in Revelations to return to their first love, etc...

I have several questions that I would like everyone's opinion on.
1. Where do you draw the line? Can it be cut and dry? A lie is a sin and so is adultry. Why can a Christian commit one and not the other? God is Holy and demands that we are to be Holy. Where is that line?

2. If a person claims to be a Christian, and they do commit adultry or a murder, if they do it one time or two times and then stop, and do not continue in it, does this classify them as an adultress or a murderer? Again, where is the line drawn. Is once enough?

Friends, I am asked these questions and I am interested in your input. My feelings are this: I would have no confidence in a person that performs these acts as a Christian. But I am unable to draw the line. I view a sin as a sin and we are all unworthy.
Please give me your thoughts. This is a very good issue that seperates a lot of Christians and does, at times, give false hope to nominal believers.

What make you a adultry or a murder? Does it take one time to do it to be called that or three or four times? I think you get my point Outsider. You are called that when you do it. No matter how many times

 

[Outsider]

What make you a adultress and a murder? Does it take one time to do it to be called that or three or four times? I think you get my point Outsider

Thats my question? Forgive me if I am not following you, but I don't follow. Please explain?