Will a Christian commit certain sins?

No your bible says what I just said in this very verse. "Living Godly" is a choice that we make. If we choose to live Godly, we will suffer. The verse says nothing about being saved at all. It assumes that audience is saved and comforts with the explaination that the suffering they are going through is a natural part of Holy living.

You have taken a mighty verse that was meant to give us courage and strengthen us when we are suffering for holy living, and reduced it to a verse that says, "Every saved person automatically lives godly and automatically suffers."

Why is it that some are rewarded with ten cities, or five cities and some get few stripes and many stripes?

Lacy

 

I notice that our three resident "Christians can not do certain things" have still not been able to produce a passage of Scripture that the sin nature has in some way been altered so as to squash its ability to do certain things.

Again if "your" doctrine is so correct why can't one of the three of you produce such evidence that shows us that our sin nature is at least partially altered in some way at the very moment we were saved.

Does that evidence exist? If so come on with it.

 

The Scripture has been produced, but you are too blind to see it.

'And such were some of you' Past tense. They are no longer adulterers, idolaters, drunkards, effiminate, etc., because they have been washed, sanctified, justififed.

Those sins have been eradicated. Those that once committed those sins are now set apart and justified through the blood of Christ.

The nature to drink, to worship other gods, to commit adultery, to act effeminite, etc., is not there.

 

What were the rest of them?

 

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


What about stealing? Is it impossible to steal? (Be careful it's tax season!)

And it is impossible for a believer to covet? Since you have been saved, you have never been tempted to covet or to be hateful (revile) to someone?

The verse in question is in the big middle of a scathing rebuke by Paul toward Christians who defrauded each other. According to you that should be impossible so why rebuke them?

He goes on (v18) to warn them to "Flee fornication!!"

What a strange thing to tell a group of people who have absolutely no possible desire to fornicate, who have had their "sin nature" eradicated.

Verse 20 concludes:

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Do you suggest that it should instead say

20 "Since you are bought with a price, you will automatically glorify God in your body so don't worry about it"?

Lacy

 

According to your theory Jesus was never temped or if was infact tempted he couldnt have been tempted to sin any major sins, Oh yea expect the first commandment... Give me a break. There is no such thing as major sin or sins that lead to death ALL SINS lead to death. Jesus is the only one who can save us from the eternal penelty of sin because he alone can boast of not breaking one of God's commandments...Jesus commands (THE LAW OF THE SPIRIT) is to love the lord with all your heart, all your soul all your mind and strength and the second like it to love thy neibhors as thy self! To those claiming that sins like lien is just a minor sin. Why then does the bible say liars will go to the lake of fire?! Who here without lien can actually say they havent lied. I believe as a human am capable of any given sin but I choose not to exercise in certain ones because It's not a weakness for me, while for another christian it might be. Not everyone is prone to every sin in the same way. Some people are more prone to commit adultry while others might be compulsive liers. BOTH ARE BREAKING THE LAW, and will face with eternal penelty of sin if They dont believe Jesus paid the price for their sin.

 

No the Scripture has not been produced. The phrase sin nature isn't even mentioned in the text that you keep referring to.

So again I ask where is the Scripture that says a portion of our sin nature that controls these "horrible" sins has been totally destroyed, yet another portion of the sin nature still remains.

And again if "your" doctrine is so correct then providing this evidence shouldn't be that difficult, yet neither of the three of you seem to be able to offer this evidence up. Wonder why that is?

 

The text I gave was enough to show that the nature to do the things they did in the past was indeed eradicated. They no longer were, for they were washed.

If you can't see it, it is of your own choosing that you cannot see it.

I desired a beer every now and then before I got saved. I stole. I no longer have that desire to drink, to steal. Why? That nature was eradicated in my life. The old is passed away.

As I said, I still struggle with sin from time to time, but not the same sins I was committing before salvation. The Spirit convicted me of those sins and I no longer commit them.

If you think the Spirit saves us from a sin but allows us to still have that same capability to commit the same sin, you are dead wrong.

 

No it didn't. It doesn't even come close. It doesn't say anything about their sin nature. Nor does it say anything about their desires. Those are both things that you are reading into the text.

We can only deal with what the text says not what we want the text to say.

You are right. I choose not to read into the text like you are.

Well I am very happy that you no longer desire to do those things, but your "personal" experience can not be made a rule for everyone else.

Again that is your "personal" experience and "personal" experience is not Scripture unless Scripture backs it up. And you have not provided any Scripture to back up your "personal" experience is the same for all people.

Well that is a nice saying, but lets see the Scripture evidence.

I notice that you have not addressed either of Jame's or Lacy's comments/question. So why would we be told/commanded to flee from fornication if that is not something that we are able to committ as Christians?

 

Praise God that He has taken that desire away from you. But you have taken a personal experience and extrapolated an entire doctrine from it. Not everyone gets instant victory over every stronghold in their lives when they get saved, nor can you assume that just because you do not desire drink today that you will never desire it again.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Why would Paul say such a thing if it were impossible for a Christian to sin?

 

I think maybe this is the problem. I don't think the Spirit saves us from sin. I think the blood of Jesus saves us from sin. You seem to think that we are saved from sin by not sinning.

 

I notice you have not produced Scripture that shows a Child of God will spend 1000 years in hell.

Of course I don't have to play the games you do and deny that Scripture has not been given.

As I said, the term 1000 years is only mentioned 9 times in the Word of God and out of those 9 times none of them even remotely come close to your false doctrine.

On the other hand, I have given Scripture to prove part of the sin nature is gone.

 

Nice diversion tactic, but nobody is buying it. You have not given Scripture that proves any part of the sin nature is gone. But again if you want to live in your fairy land by all means . . . but what is sad is people are being deceived into believing a doctrine that you can't even support. That is just sad on so many fronts.

 

I see you use a little "shock" value yourself. Might be a little hypocritical.

I have you know that Bro Bob nor any of these others are the first to bring up such horrendeous sins. I think the first "shock" value was "a saved person could die in the act of adultery and still go to Heaven". That is the one that brought in the so called "shock" value and it came from your side.

There been pleanty of scripture given but you won't take it. That is why I use "shock" value to wake you up!

 

Brother Bob you deceive your own self. There has been ZERO Scripture given that even has the phrase sin nature in it. Please provide a passage of Scripture that says or even implies that our sin nature has been partially altered so that it is incapable of functioning.

Let's see it Bro. Bob. It should be right on the tip of your tongue since you are so convinced that you are right. Your next post should contain this Scripture.

And if you believe that you have already given it then please just cut and paste it into your next post and then highlight just the portion that talks about the sin nature being partially destroyed so we can all see it. This really shouldn't be that hard for you folks.

 

Once again, the example Pauls gives in 1 Corinthians 5 should settle this debate. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, assumed, and rightly so, that this man who had committed this horrible sin was a believer. The evidence is in 2 Corinthians 2 when Paul commends them to receive the man (after he has repented) back in love.

Yes, a believer can commit any sin that an unbeliever can commit.

Case closed!

Max

 

When Jesus cast the demons out of the demoniac, the people of that town found the man, clothed and in his right mind.

He was no longer running around naked! That part of the sin nature in him had been eradicated. Or are you saying it is not a sin to run around naked?

 

Are you all telling us that it is unsafe to let Christian groups into our homes to testify of Jesus Christ for fear that they may be some among them that would tie us up, rape or wives, slit our thoats and then burn the house.

If you want I can post where you have said you are capable of "any" sin, but I am sure you remember saying it. I thought we wanted to get good Christians in our Government so we have honest and good people in office, but after hearing your theology, I find that is no longer true, nor according to you, never has been.
According to what your theology is, my neighbor who is not a Christian but is a good "moral" man who loves his neighbors and would do them no harm, is a better person than some of those who are "born again" Christians. Ironic!!

 

This in no way settles the debate. Show me where this man was actually saved in the first instance.
He couldn't get saved as long as he was a hypocrit so he had to be cast out so he could get right and really be "born again".

Can you prove he was really saved when he was a fonicating with his father's wife? Why would they have to cast a saved brother from among them. You all haven't even advocated to get rid of such a one.

11: And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

If it was well known that you all admit to being capable of doing the same as the molestors and rapists etc, I would think you would find it hard to find a place to testify.
"hey come and do as I say, but not as I do". Is that the message?

 

1 Corinthians 5 in no way says the man was saved.

The man was among them, but that does not mean he was saved. I daresay that there are unsaved people in every church in the United States.