-
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!
Transgressing the Law
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
- Status
Brother Bob
New Member
Luke 1:Amy.G said:
5: There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6: And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
What about Zacharias and Elisabeth?
Are we playing God when we decide who has broken His Commandment? Who hath known His mind, and who hath been His counselor?
I agree that according to us, Abraham sinned. God didn't seem to think so. Did God ever call it a "lie"?
Gen 26:5Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Did He lie before salvation? It was diffinetly before God made the covenant with Abram and changed his name to Abraham.
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry BBob. I didn't mean to leave you hangin'. I had to go eat dinner and then do the dishes. Bleh. :laugh:Brother Bob said:
We know that the only sinless person who ever lived was Jesus. So we can know that every other person has sinned, including Abraham.
Abraham did do all that God commanded him. He left his home as God told him to, he obeyed God when he was told to circumcise all those in his household, and so on. But he also sinned by deceiving the Pharoah so as not to put himself in danger. He chose to lie to Pharoah and allow Sarai to be taken into his house and possibly be made Pharoah's wife, just to save his own skin. This is sin. So yes, Abraham did as God commanded, but he also sinned by lying. God chastised him for it too. He was told to get out of Egypt. Isaac did this exact same thing when he lied and said that Rebekah was his sister instead of his wife. Like father, like son?
Even though Abraham lied before the Law was written on the stone tablets does not lessen the fact that he sinned. For even the Gentiles who do not have the Law are a law unto themselves. Lying is and has always been a sin. Even the great men like Abraham were sinners just like me. He needed God's grace just as much as I do.
God declared him righteous because of his faith, not because he was perfect.
God declares us righteous because of our faith also.
The Law cannot save anyone. It is there to show us our sin.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
Brother Bob
New Member
Well I agree he lied, but it seems there was a time that God considered him as being one who did in fact keep His commandments. I assume it was after God made the covenant with him.Amy.G said:
Gen 26:5Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
I also agree it took the blood of Christ to cover all of them. If they died in faith believing, then the blood flowed back to them.
My point is there is something here we are not getting and that is the fact that some indeed did keep the "Law". I know they did not all their life, but there came a time they did, but even then, the Law could not give life then or now. They did have to have faith though to receive the blood.
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
So how do we reconcile "blameless" with "all have sinned"?
Sin being the transgression of the law would make Abraham and David sinners just like all others.
So what must "blameless" mean?
It cannot mean sinlessness, for all have transgressed the law. What then? Could it be that these spoken of had lives that focussed on pleasing God?
As they lived their lives they had minds set on obeying God's charges, commandments, statutes and laws, as well as God's voice. As they would stumble into a transgression of the law, God would convict them or send one to them to show them their fault and they would repent and continue forward unto God?
Would not the very act of repenting be part of "obeying ALL of God's words"? God's word calls everyone to repentance, is this not part of walking blamelessly knowing full well that no one is perfect as Jesus is?
My thoughts do not suggest go sin without a care and God will forgive me, all I have to do is say I am sorry.
My thoughts do suggest that all do sin, but the blameless ones will listen to God's voice or God's messengers and repent. I don't see any other way to look at this. I cannot declare that these spoken of as "blameless" are somehow "sinless". That would go against the clear teachings of God's word. Let's not forget that "repentance" is part of the ALL of God's commandments as well.
Brother Bob
New Member
Well, I understand that according to your theology, that you would see the scripture as you have described. There is also another way to look at it because God said the indeed did keep His commandments and were blameless, could be that they in a time in their lives had enough faith to follow God and do just what God said they did. This being the grevious sins and not the sin that Jesus spoke of that a brother could do which is not unto death.steaver said:
To me, all the 10 are "death" sins. If you break one without repentance it brings death. Jesus said there is a sin not unto death. I can only surmise that it is sins that are "petty" sins. Seems to me that everyone would agree that a foolish thought is not the same sin, as committing adultery. I cannot understand why, all would not agree on that.
I can give scripture where there is a difference in sin. There certainly was a difference in punishment of sin under the OT. Can anyone give scripture where a foolish thought sin and an adultery sin, are indeed the same before God.
I could of written your response, without seeing it. I am sure you could of written mine. Is there not some "common" ground?
Is there not "reason" among us at all.
If they could keep the Law and Statues and Commandments, as God said they did, but yet they were sinners. That seems to suggest something to me. If the Law covered it all, why were the Statues and Commandments added in there?
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with you on this. I don't believe it is suggested by any that there are not differing consequences for differing sins, but for the Christian that is here on this earth while living in this dead body the consequence is never eternal damnation. The difference in opinion here is on eternal consequences. The penalty of all sin is eternal damnation apart from being found in Christ, the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
You seperate sin into two categories. I don't see this from scripture. I see from scripture that sin is the transgression of the law and must take that to be all sin. You have said before about sin before the law. It does not make any difference when the law was delivered in writing. The law is eternal just as God is eternal.
I believe that the statutes and commandments are all added in support of the law. Jesus said if you Love God and love thy neighbour you fullfill all the law. Everything given was geared towards teaching love for God and love for each other, for God is Love.
As for the law, I believe the law was not added from a "new thought" perspective that God had decided to just begin, but the law was commanded to be put into writing and to be preached and taught continuiosly because of the sinful human nature that was prone to searing their own consciences and distancing themselves from good. When God destroyed the inhabitants of the earth in the flood it was because they had become totally evil all the time. There conscience was seared and there was no bringing them back. Later God delivered the law so it would be forever present in their lives, I believe to keep this from happening again. However it was still not enough nor perfect and that is why God sends Jesus and then the Holy Spirit.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: What necessitates this ‘one’ notion of the ‘sin not unto death’ being interpreted only as you assume it to be? Are there not other clear plausible explanations of such a ‘sin not unto death’ that have been presented? It would appear to me that in this case you are drawing some hard and fast conclusions to, for all practical purposes, a ‘stand alone’ passage that can be seen as in direct opposition to other statements concerning the penalty for sin, and in the process seem to now be picking and choosing which sins you wish to place in what category without Scripture clearly informing us that such is the case.
Another ‘possible’ error you and others may be imbibing involves the assumed definition of sin. Could the possibility exist that some are calling sin that in actual reality are ideas that Scripture does not ever indicate that it is? Could it be that after defining sin by your own ideas as to what it entails, you then attach ‘sins not unto death’ to intents or actions that in reality are no sin at all, and remove the stated penalty, eternal separation from God, to intents Scripture in no wise states are exempt from that penalty?
Brother Bob
New Member
Do you deny that the breaking of either of the 10, is eternal death, without repentance?Heavenly Pilgrim said:
Do you deny that according to John via Jesus, there is a sin which is not unto death?
You tell me the difference, for there clearly is one. Also, which is which. How can you cluster them all in one, when scripture plainly does not.
Jesus said "he that delivereth me unto thee, hath the GREATER sin.
What bothers me, is that you all seem to just gloss over these scripture to get to your theology of "one guilt" sin.
The "sin which is not unto death" means something. It is not just there.
I stand alone as far as this board is concerned, it seems, but I am not alone. Google it and see.
1 John 5:16-17 Paraphrased According to Scholer
If any member of the believing community sees a fellow believer committing
any one of the "sins of the righteous," i.e. those which do not preclude membership
in the believing community, he should pray for him, and God will give to the sinning
brother reconfirmation (cf. 1 John 1:6-10) of his transfer from the realm of death to
the realm of life (cf. 1 John 3:14). Indeed, this will be done for any and all brothers
who sin in this way. There is, of course, sin which does preclude membership in the
believing community (i.e. murder = hatred of believers and lying = denial of Jesus);
it is sin in the realm of death. I do not speak concerning that sin unto death in order
that anyone should pray about it. All unrighteousness is sin; however, there is sin
which does not preclude membership in the believing community. We know that
every one who has been born of God (i.e. believers in the community) does not sin
in any way which precludes membership in the believing community. The Son of
God keeps each believer, and therefore the devil is not able to hold him.
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Anything that is not of faith is sin. Sins penalty is eternal separation from God.
HP: No, but neither is my mind limited to one interpretation of that verse. I thought I gave my explanation for a sin not unto death and a sin unto death. Here it is again.
HP: 1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jo 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
First it was the apostle John and not Jesus that mentions the sin not unto death, was it not?
I would not view the sin not unto death and unto death in the manner some are understanding it. First, this is the only verse that I am aware of that could be understood as sin that might not (if ones interpretation is correct) merit eternal separation from God. It is a stand alone verse, and if interpreted to mean that some sins will not merit eternal separation from God it is then understood as being in direct opposition to the numerous verses that indicate any and all sin will bring about the penalty of sin, i.e., eternal separation from God. Therefore I am very cautious of making doctrine with this one verse.
I am of the opinion that it is speaking NOT of some sins not meriting eternal punishment, but rather that there are some sins that when committed, God will immediately strike the person dead. We have at least a few examples of this happening. It does absolutely no good to pray for those individuals in that situation. A sin Not unto death, is a sin, that if persisted in until death without repentance, will indeed, as any other sin, merit eternal separation from God, yet God does not immediately strike the individual down as in the sin unto death. There is a time period that the individual is ‘in danger of’ eternal separation, yet has not reached the point of no return. It is for these sins that we are to pray for.
HP: Sin again brings about eternal separation from God. I will leave it to the reader to make what they will of varied punishments after that separation occurs. I do not see Scripture telling us in plain language as to what that varied punishment might entail. I agree that there appears to be degrees of punishment within that eternal separation, I just am not privy to the details.
HP: Yes, it means something. It is just that what it means is not limited to your specific understanding nor that necessarily of mine. There is more than one way to look at this passage. If we are to accept your understanding, along with your stated belief in OSAS, we would be forced to believe that those that make it in have not, yea cannot break one of the ‘ten’ and still make it in. I do not believe that can be supported by Scripture, reason, or experience.
IF a believer commits sin, I believe Scripture is clear that without repentance such a one will find themselves outside of the Kingdom. OSAS is in error and cannot be established by the Word of God.
Brother Bob
New Member
I reposted this in case you missed it. I indeed am not alone.Heavenly Pilgrim said:
1 John 5:16-17 Paraphrased According to Scholer
If any member of the believing community sees a fellow believer committing
any one of the "sins of the righteous," i.e. those which do not preclude membership
in the believing community, he should pray for him, and God will give to the sinning
brother reconfirmation (cf. 1 John 1:6-10) of his transfer from the realm of death to
the realm of life (cf. 1 John 3:14). Indeed, this will be done for any and all brothers
who sin in this way. There is, of course, sin which does preclude membership in the
believing community (i.e. murder = hatred of believers and lying = denial of Jesus);
it is sin in the realm of death. I do not speak concerning that sin unto death in order
that anyone should pray about it. All unrighteousness is sin; however, there is sin
which does not preclude membership in the believing community. We know that
every one who has been born of God (i.e. believers in the community) does not sin
in any way which precludes membership in the believing community. The Son of
God keeps each believer, and therefore the devil is not able to hold him.
BBob,
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I can only say that I believe that Scholer certainly missed it there, in spite of others that believe the same.
Brother Bob
New Member
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
TERTULLIAN
On modesty
Chapter 2 "We agree that the causes of repentance are sins. These we divide into two issues: some will be remissible, some irremissible: in accordance wherewith it will be doubtful to no one that some deserve chastisement, some condemnation. Every sin is dischargeable either by pardon or else by penalty: by pardon as the result of chastisement, by penalty as the result of condemnation. Touching this difference, we have not only already premised certain antithetical passages of the Scriptures, on one hand retaining, on the other remitting, sins; but John, too, will teach us: "If any knoweth his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, he shall request, and life shall be given to him;" because he is not "sinning unto death," this will be remissible. " (There) is a sin unto death; not for this do I say that any is to request"--this will be irremissible. So, where there is the efficacious power of "making request," there likewise is that of remission: where there is no (efficacious power) of "making request," there equally is none of remission either. According to this difference of sins, the condition of repentance also is discriminated. There will be a condition which may possibly obtain pardon,--in the case, namely, of a remissible sin: there will be a condition which can by no means obtain it,--in the case, namely, of an irremissible sin. And it remains to examine specially, with regard to the position of adultery and fornication, to which class of sins they ought to be assigned."
It can be understood that Tertullian and other Church Fathers had their opinions about what sins might or might not be forgiven
BBob,
On modesty
Chapter 2 "We agree that the causes of repentance are sins. These we divide into two issues: some will be remissible, some irremissible: in accordance wherewith it will be doubtful to no one that some deserve chastisement, some condemnation. Every sin is dischargeable either by pardon or else by penalty: by pardon as the result of chastisement, by penalty as the result of condemnation. Touching this difference, we have not only already premised certain antithetical passages of the Scriptures, on one hand retaining, on the other remitting, sins; but John, too, will teach us: "If any knoweth his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, he shall request, and life shall be given to him;" because he is not "sinning unto death," this will be remissible. " (There) is a sin unto death; not for this do I say that any is to request"--this will be irremissible. So, where there is the efficacious power of "making request," there likewise is that of remission: where there is no (efficacious power) of "making request," there equally is none of remission either. According to this difference of sins, the condition of repentance also is discriminated. There will be a condition which may possibly obtain pardon,--in the case, namely, of a remissible sin: there will be a condition which can by no means obtain it,--in the case, namely, of an irremissible sin. And it remains to examine specially, with regard to the position of adultery and fornication, to which class of sins they ought to be assigned."
It can be understood that Tertullian and other Church Fathers had their opinions about what sins might or might not be forgiven
BBob,
But this view causes contradiction throughout the scriptures. Jesus said that ALL sin shall be forgiven except blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.
One thing we should consider. When John wrote this, the believers who read this did not scratch their heads and wonder what sin unto death John was speaking of. The readers understood what John was saying so it is not impossible for us to know exactly what John was speaking of.
Was John reffering to the blasphemy Jesus spoke of? Was John reffering maybe to the death of Ananias and Sapphira when they lied to the Holy ghost? Or maybe to capital punishment sins that the condemned were going to be put to death for?
We have these three examples given in scripture. I do not see any example of sin unto "eternal" death verses sin unto eternal life.
We can know and should know from the scriptures themselves should we not? What sayeth the scriptures?? Why assume or add unfounded possibilities??
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Bob, your view holds that the death spoken of by John is "eternal spiritual death" and not just a physical death. If we hold to that view then what Jesus said alone cancels out the possibility that the sin unto death spoken of by John is sins such as stealing, adultery and murder.
If you hold fast to the death spoken of being eternal spiritual death, then the only sin that can be inserted here is the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost . You cannot add any other sins for Jesus said that all sins would be forgiven with one exception.
Bob, your view holds that the death spoken of by John is "eternal spiritual death" and not just a physical death. If we hold to that view then what Jesus said alone cancels out the possibility that the sin unto death spoken of by John is sins such as stealing, adultery and murder.
If you hold fast to the death spoken of being eternal spiritual death, then the only sin that can be inserted here is the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost . You cannot add any other sins for Jesus said that all sins would be forgiven with one exception.
Brother Bob
New Member
Origensteaver said:
Some Sins Irremissible
The Apostles and those who are like the Apostles, being priests after the fashion of the great high priest, who have gained knowledge of the service of God; all these know, through the instruction of the Spirit, what are the sins for which one should offer sacrifice . . . and what sins admit of no sacrifice. ... I do not know how certain men, arrogating more than the priestly right, perhaps not fully versed in priestly knowledge, can claim the power to condone idolatry, to forgive adultery and fornication; as if, through their prayers on behalf of those who have not shrunk from such enormities, even the ‘sin unto death’ is pardoned.
BBob,
Don't know of any scripture that says as much. Sounds more like speculation.
Me either. What man would attempt to pray for sin unto death when John said don't? My post is addressing the details for defining the sin unto death, not the ministering of prayers.
Brother Bob
New Member
The point is what Origen is calling a "sin unto death". No pardon. In these sins unto death is Adultery. He was talking about John speaking about "believers". His point is that if they were to commit such sin, prayer is not going to help them. To which I say the same, for those who have tasted of the good fruits of the Lord and if they were to fall away, to renew them to repentance is impossible. I simply do not believe a believer will fall.steaver said:
I must be a "leftover" from the early church.
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe you are expanding Origen's thoughts to say that he is saying Christians don't sin. This is your view, I do not see Origen saying as much. You are bringing another issue into this debate over the "sin unto death". Just let the Christians don't sin debate go for now and focus on the sin unto death part. Origen said nothing about Christians not sinning unto death that I have seen.
But that aside, who do I side with? Origen, who says "no pardon" for adultery and murder. Or Jesus, who said ALL manner of sin shall be forgiven?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: In many ways we all are, BUT the doctrine you are embracing, OSAS, is not a left over from the early church nor from Origen.
- Status