To Be or Not to Be

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Can one be free from sin, cleansed from sin and be sinning at one and the same time? Can one be and not be the same thing at the same time in the same sense?

 

[trustitl]

After scratching my head for a minute I am concluding that I will answer yes.

I am free from sin, it no longer has dominion over me. I am not a slave to it. I have been crucified with Christ.

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin." Rom 6:6
" For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." Rom. 6:14
"Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." Rom. 6:18
"But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." Rom. 6:22

As the song writer said "I have been cleansed by the blood of the lamb."
"But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins." 2 Peter 1:9

As much as I hate to admit it I do sin. But thankfully I have an advocate.
" 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: And he is the propitiation for our sins" I John 2:1-2

 

[Gwyneth]

Can one be free from sin, cleansed from sin and be sinning at one and the same time? Can one be and not be the same thing at the same time in the same sense?

The price of my sin has been paid for by my Saviour. Yet, with shame :tear: I admit I am still a sinner..... though no longer in debt for this by the grace of GOD and through my Saviours sacrifice.

 

[nunatak]

In the life of a believer who has been justified by grace through faith, he/she has received the earnest of their inheritance, which is the Holy Spirit. The believer has been JUSTIFIED. This means that all the sins I have committed, or will commit have been paid for by the sacrifice of Christ. Not only that, but all the righteousness that I could not do in that I am fallen, Christ's righteousness has been CREDITED to me. God truly has accepted the sacrifice of Christ in payment for the penalty of my sins, that is, propiation. A good mental picture is that God sees me through the Cross of Christ. My sins, all of them, are not in His view, because HE sees me in the shadow of the Cross. Nothing to be ashamed about here. The focus is not on me, or my sin, my insufficiency, my failures, weaknesses, etc., etc., etc. The focus is on CHRIST ALONE. He is my all in all. I am complete in Him. It pleased God to pay for my sins through the death of His Son. Soli Deo Gloria.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: After scratching my head for a minute I am concluding that I will answer yes.

I am free from sin, it no longer has dominion over me. I am not a slave to it. I have been crucified with Christ.

HP: How would you harmonize what you said with this passage? Lu 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


What about this verse? How does it fit with your ‘yes’ answer? ” Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Gwyneth: The price of my sin has been paid for by my Saviour. Yet, with shame I admit I am still a sinner..... though no longer in debt for this by the grace of GOD and through my Saviours sacrifice.

HP: Can you think of a verse that substantiates your position?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Nunatak: In the life of a believer who has been justified by grace through faith, he/she has received the earnest of their inheritance, which is the Holy Spirit. The believer has been JUSTIFIED. This means that all the sins I have committed, or will commit have been paid for by the sacrifice of Christ.

HP: I would have the same question for you as I did for Gwyneth. Where is your Scriptural support for that claim? If one is forgiven of a crime by way of a pardon, are we to assume that they are also forgiven of any future infractions of the law? Could it not be said of the one pardoned that ‘they have been forgiven for all their debt to the law,’ yet without insinuating in any way that if the person pardoned goes out and commits future acts of wickedness that they will once again find themselves under the condemnation of the law?

 

[steaver]

Could it not be said of the one pardoned that ‘they have been forgiven for all their debt to the law,’ yet without insinuating in any way that if the person pardoned goes out and commits future acts of wickedness that they will once again find themselves under the condemnation of the law?

You are stuck in religion HP.

Learn this and you will be set free.....

For by grace ye have been saved through faith, and this not of yourself, it is the gift of God.

You are saved by a relationship. A Father bearing children, born again. No religion will cause you to lose or gain favor or salvation with God. Ye must be born of God.

God bless! :wavey:

 

[trustitl]

HP: How would you harmonize what you said with this passage? Lu 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


What about this verse? How does it fit with your ‘yes’ answer? ” Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

John 8:34 is not talking about a person who commits a sin. Being a present participle makes it clear he is talking about an ongoing life of sin. The Jews he was talking to had been had strayed from God and were now rejecting Jesus and seeking to kill Him.

If I go out and smoke I do not become a smoker, I just smoked. Also, it is hard to go out to the beach and never have a sea gull hit you from above. But, that is very different than making yourself a roost for sea gulls.

Regarding Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" I say that even the most devoted servants spills the coffee every now and then.

Jesus is exposing the heart of the Pharisees here. Verse 15 is also a good use of the word "justify" like I explained earlier. "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts". A good master knows which of his servants are seeking to serve him just as God knows the hearts of men.

As a dad of 6 children I am not focusing on the way my children fulfill the responsibilities that I have given them. I am looking to see if they desire to serve those around them including me. As children they are learning and growing every day and inevitably fail to perform things without erring. This is an opportunity for me to teach them and for them to see their weaknesses.

God is more interested in the desires of our hearts than our performance which is why David was able to be called a man after God's own heart. A man with a list of grievous sins on his resume.

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Heb. 4:12

The truth in this verse is what made it so Jesus could see that the Pharisees were seeking to be justified by men. They had cleaned up the outside of the cup but the inside (the intents of their heart) were filthy.

I will gladly take a sip of ice cold water while we're making hay on a hot July afternoon from a cup that is dirty on the outside if the inside is clean.

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."Matt. 11:28-30

"For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief" Heb. 4:10-11

 

[Born_in_Crewe]

On the whole I would say 'yes' - we are saved through grace. We should however aim to behave well, even if we don't always succeed. But we are delivered by blood.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: John 8:34 is not talking about a person who commits a sin. Being a present participle makes it clear he is talking about an ongoing life of sin. The Jews he was talking to had been had strayed from God and were now rejecting Jesus and seeking to kill Him.

HP: Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Scripture is not a book designed to be deciphered by such methods as you are employing here. There is no way you can take this verse, written in common parlance, and apply such a stringent interpretation to it. Adam became a servant of sin when he tasted of the forbidden fruit. Any man serves sin when he sins. It could have simply stated, he that sins serves sin and as such is the servant of sin.

TrustitL: If I go out and smoke I do not become a smoker, I just smoked. Also, it is hard to go out to the beach and never have a sea gull hit you from above. But, that is very different than making yourself a roost for sea gulls.

HP: You seem to be saying, if I only sin once it really is not sin. I suppose Adam could have said, “Come on God! I only took one bite! Your command was not to simply take one bite, it was not to make a habit out of eating the forbidden fruit!”

Contrary to what some may feel, lives and souls are lost over one sin. “The soul that sinneth, it shall certainly die.” You place whatever verb tense you so desire on God’s commands, but God’s Word remains true. Apart from repentance, faith, and continued obedience, sin will cost one their soul. To teach otherwise is to presume on the grace of God. If something does not cost you your soul, take it to the bank, it was not sin, or repentance, faith, and obedience have been invoked.

TrustitL: Regarding Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" I say that even the most devoted servants spills the coffee every now and then.

HP: It is not a sin to spill your coffee, but it is to transgress one known law of God. We need to get the sin issue straight. Sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God, not spilling the coffee. Certainly the believer can indeed sin, but no conscientious believer will simply view sin as equivalent to an accidental spilling of the coffee.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: If I go out and smoke I do not become a smoker, I just smoked. Also, it is hard to go out to the beach and never have a sea gull hit you from above. But, that is very different than making yourself a roost for sea gulls.

HP: This is a most troubling statement to me. Let’s suppose I go out and kill just one person. I have never killed before and I will not ever do it again. Did I become a murderer or did I simply commit just one murder? What kind of mental gymnastics are we engaging ourselves in over the concept of sin? I wonder how Cain would answer this question………or should we wonder at all?

'Thou shalt not commit murder.'

 

[trustitl]

How then do you explain:

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." Rom. 6:14

"But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." Rom. 6:17-18

I guess I just take the common parlance of "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John 8:36) and you don't.

 

[trustitl]

HP: You seem to be saying, if I only sin once it really is not sin.

No I don't. You just want me to be saying that because it is an easier target.

Contrary to what some may feel, lives and souls are lost over one sin. “The soul that sinneth, it shall certainly die.” You place whatever verb tense you so desire on God’s commands, but God’s Word remains true. Apart from repentance, faith, and continued obedience, sin will cost one their soul. To teach otherwise is to presume on the grace of God. If something does not cost you your soul, take it to the bank, it was not sin, or repentance, faith, and obedience have been invoked.

I disagree that one sin is going to send me to hell. If my sinning does not take me to hell it is because I have an advocate. I have an advocate God has granted me one because I believed and I believe. My obedience to the law has nothing to do with my salvation.

HP: It is not a sin to spill your coffee, but it is to transgress one known law of God. We need to get the sin issue straight. Sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God, not spilling the coffee. Certainly the believer can indeed sin, but no conscientious believer will simply view sin as equivalent to an accidental spilling of the coffee.

Never said spilling coffee was a sin. It was used as an ... Oh you know that but once again you chose to prop it up as another easy target and make it appear that I think sin is a trivial matter. You will say that I do view sin as a trivial matter in your next post no doubt, but I have never said nor do I think it.

Just because you have placed more conditions on receiving forgiveness than I do does not mean I think sin is to be sneezed at. Obedience to known commands of God did not get me forgiven, nor will it keep me forgiven.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: My obedience to the law has nothing to do with my salvation.

HP: Why should I not take your comments to be supporting plain antinomianism?

TrustitL: Never said spilling coffee was a sin. It was used as an ... Oh you know that but once again you chose to prop it up as another easy target and make it appear that I think sin is a trivial matter. You will say that I do view sin as a trivial matter in your next post no doubt, but I have never said nor do I think it

.

HP: You made a clear reference to spilling coffee being likened to the trivial, and according to you, unavoidable occasion to sin. If you were not referring to sin being likened to a trivial matter such as spilling the coffee, why use that illustration? If you try and indicate that one can sin, yet no penalty is incurred, not only have you trivialized sin, but again entered into an antinomian position, having destroyed the law. Law without penalty may be good advice or council, but is no law at all.


So what is ‘spilling of the coffee’ illustration you set forth trying to illustrate if not sin?

 

[trustitl]

Spilling the coffee might seem trivial to you but to a servant that loves his master and wants to please him, spilling coffee on the guest of honors lap would be a huge "missing of the mark". That servant and this one are driven by the law of love.

As far as the antinomianism slam goes, I'll take it if it means that I don't think my salvation is tied to my keeping of the law. What do you mean by antinomianism anyway? I find that to be a cliche that people throw around at people that don't agree with them in regards to how they live.

Am I anti law? No, I establish the law. It was the best way God could show his people they were sinners. It is still working today. In fact it sounds like it is still doing that for you.

"Law without penalty is no law at all". Agreed. Thankfully I am not under it. I will stick with the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." You aren't bringing me back under it. Been there, done that. :tonofbricks:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: Spilling the coffee might seem trivial to you but to a servant that loves his master and wants to please him, spilling coffee on the guest of honors lap would be a huge "missing of the mark". That servant and this one are driven by the law of love.

HP: Here again you use a cliché that is commonly used to denote sin, i.e. a missing of the mark. That is another discussion that we need to return to at some point. There should be no question in the readers mind why one would see you trivializing sin (as one spilling the coffee) when you speak of it as ‘missing the mark.’ I would either clarify for the reader that spilling of the coffee is NOT sin, and the error you are alluding to by that illustration do not consist in sin, if one is interested in clarity.

TrustitL: As far as the antinomianism slam goes, I'll take it if it means that I don't think my salvation is tied to my keeping of the law. What do you mean by antinomianism anyway? I find that to be a cliché that people throw around at people that don't agree with them in regards to how they live.

HP: Antinomianism is simply a belief that the keeping of the law has nothing to do with ones standing before God. It is a hope of salvation apart from righteousness intents and subsequent actions. It is a destruction of the law by destroying its stated penalty, as if though one can sin with impunity (avoidance of the penalty of the law) if they are a believer. Nothing could be further from the truth. If ones actions are not in accordance to the faith one claims to possess, such a one has dead faith and dead faith will save no one. Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

TrustitL: Am I anti law? No, I establish the law. It was the best way God could show his people they were sinners. It is still working today. In fact it sounds like it is still doing that for you.

HP: You do not establish the law by any stretch of the imagination if you eliminate its penalty in any setting apart from repentance.

TrustitL: "Law without penalty is no law at all". Agreed. Thankfully I am not under it.

HP: One is not under the law when one first has received forgiveness from sisn that are past, and subsequently is directing their formed intents in a consistent manner of obedience to God’s moral law. When you assume, as I see you doing, that the law is somehow simply set aside for the believer, and nothing the believer can or will do will in any way severe the relationship with God and their hope of eternal life, you have attempted to speak of a law that has no penalty in the case of the believer. That is simply not the case nor is it in accordance to Scripture. When any man violates the moral law of God, they indeed will come under the law and its penalty. Apart from renewed repentance and a walk of righteous behavior, such a one is deceiving themselves as to their final standing before God.

TrustitL: I will stick with the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." You aren't bringing me back under it. Been there, done that.

HP: If you are under the law of life in Christ Jesus, your intents and subsequent actions will indeed be consistent with obedience. If ones intents and actions are not consistent with righteousness and obedience, it is a certain sign that such a one is self deceived if they claim to be in firm possession of eternal life.

God has not so designed the assurance of salvation so as one, living not in accordance to God’s law, can be assured of his final standing before Him. Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

1Jo 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.


1Jo 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20 ¶ For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

 

[trustitl]

Missing of the mark is not a cliche, rather it is a literal translation of the Greek word "hamartano". You just can't get yourself to allow any definition other than not obeying a known command of God.

And get over the coffee thing. The master said put the coffee in the cup and the servant put it on the guest of honors lap. The servant got distracted by the young lady in the pretty dress and tripped over the rug. Sounds like "missing the mark", oops, not obeying a known command to me. Would you be happier if I used some "terrible" sin like adultry with the masters wife?

HP: Antinomianism is simply a belief that the keeping of the law has nothing to do with ones standing before God.

OK, then I guess I'm an antinomian in your mind. I'm probably of the devil as well.
"He that committeth sin is of the devil" I John 3:8

Where did you come up with "When any man violates the moral law of God, they indeed will come under the law and its penalty."

What laws are the "moral law" and what are it's penalties? And how do I exactly pay that price?

HP: One is not under the law when one first has received forgiveness from sisn that are past
ANd then one goes back under it when he commits his first sin as a child of God? Thats a new one.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: Missing of the mark is not a cliche, rather it is a literal translation of the Greek word "hamartano". You just can't get yourself to allow any definition other than not obeying a known command of God.

HP: I fully understand that missing the mark is often used as a translation of the word sin, but I think it is a very misleading one. Here is a post I wrote concerning sin as the missing of the mark.

Let me ask you a question. If one failed to miss the mark and one discovered that the bullet was loaded without powder and that only the primer launched the bullet, could you praise such a one for missing the target, and would he be disappointed in himself for missing the intended target under those circumstances? Why or why not.

Sin is blameworthy and is justly punishable. It is not a mere missing of a mark, but a willful choice of selfishness in opposition to benevolence.

Let me illustrate my point on why sin is not a mere missing of the mark another way. A man stands on the firing line in a competitive shoot. As he bears down on the target an opponent bumps into him just as he squeezes the trigger. The bullet fails to hit its mark due to the coercive bump he received. Who in a just mind would penalize the shooter for missing his mark when there was obvious coercive interference?

Sin is not just ‘missing the mark.' Sin is blameworthy. Sin is a violation of moral law. Strictly speaking, moral law governs over intentions alone. In the absence of intention can be no violation of moral law.

There can be a thousand reasons why a marksman may miss their target without rightfully and justly incurring anything closely associated with blame. Sin always and rightfully incurs just punishment, personal guilt, and just blame. Sin always involves selfishness as opposed to benevolence. Strictly speaking, missing the mark does not speak to the core prerequisites that must be predicated of any intent or subsequent action denoted as sin. Sin is a moral issue, and moral issues always involve willful intents in direct opposition to known commandments of God. Such is not the case with the sheer missing of the mark. ​

 

[trustitl]

And get over the coffee thing. The master said put the coffee in the cup and the servant put it on the guest of honors lap. The servant got distracted by the young lady in the pretty dress and tripped over the rug. Sounds like "missing the mark", oops, not obeying a known command to me. Would you be happier if I used some "terrible" sin like adultry with the masters wife?

HP: Antinomianism is simply a belief that the keeping of the law has nothing to do with ones standing before God.

OK, then I guess I'm an antinomian in your mind. I'm probably of the devil as well.
"He that committeth sin is of the devil" I John 3:8

Where did you come up with "When any man violates the moral law of God, they indeed will come under the law and its penalty."

What laws are the "moral law" and what are it's penalties? And how do I exactly pay that price?

HP: One is not under the law when one first has received forgiveness from sisn that are past
And then one goes back under it when he commits his first sin as a child of God? Thats a new one.

The literal translation is not a poor one. It is merely the literal translation and you just don't like it. If it is such a poor word to have used, why would God have inspired the scripture writers to use it. I think the problem is not with the word, but rather your unwillingness to accept it.

Thought maybe you missed the rest of my post so I re-posted it.