PDA

View Full Version : Christians Don't Sin



Pages : [1] 2

Yttrium
03-28-2015, 10:34 AM
True Christians don't sin. Or so I've been told by some Christians. My response to that usually runs along the lines of: If true Christians don't sin, then I've never met a true Christian. However, this idea has been bugging me lately, and I have a number of questions about it. I note that it's not a universal Christian doctrine. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church teaches that all humans are sinners, even the Christians. That's why they have confessionals, after all. The members of the flock go to the confessionals to admit their latest sins, repent, and seek forgiveness. I've met a lot of Protestants who similarly believe that Christians sin. So the position that Christians don't sin would seem to be a minority viewpoint.

My questions:

Are there specific denominations that teach the idea that true Christians don't sin?

Is it a popular view among Christians around here?

Which would be true, under this view? Or do both flavors exist out there? Or is it some other explanation that I've overlooked?
- True Christians have already been forgiven, so nothing they do is considered to be sinful, even if it would be considered sinful for others.
- True Christians simply don't do things that would be considered sinful for others.

Do Christians who believe that Christians sin see a Biblical contradiction in the idea that Christians don't sin? And vice versa? I'd like to get a better understanding of the arguments involved. The idea that true Christians don't sin seems to me to be nonsensical on the face of it, so any attempt to make it make sense would be appreciated.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 10:38 AM
Is this a parody? Because John even says that if someone claims to be without sin, he's a liar, or something like that. Here's a verse.

If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 John 1:10

KingsGambit
03-28-2015, 10:39 AM
There are a number of statements in the book of 1 John about the nature of Christians and sin. It's worded almost as a paradox. It says that Christians cannot and do not sin... but that nonetheless, Christians do sin, and when they do, they have recourse to be forgiven by Jesus... and that for that matter, if one claims to be sinless, they are a liar. The general way this is reconciled, which I agree with, is that true Christians will continue to sin, but their lives will not reflect a pattern of ongoing sin, and when they do sin, they will feel genuine remorse and repent.

Yttrium
03-28-2015, 10:39 AM
Is this a parody? Because James even says that if someone claims to be without sin, he's a liar, or something like that.

No, really, I've encountered this quite a few times, including around here.

KingsGambit
03-28-2015, 10:39 AM
Is this a parody? Because James even says that if someone claims to be without sin, he's a liar, or something like that.

Why would it be a parody? It's a genuine question and a perfectly good one at that.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 10:42 AM
No, really, I've encountered this quite a few times, including around here.

Sorry. It's just pretty goofy for someone to claim Christians never sin. Maybe fundies claim it?

KingsGambit
03-28-2015, 10:44 AM
Sorry. It's just pretty goofy for someone to claim Christians never sin. Maybe fundies claim it?

It's been a hot theological issue for awhile. Even John Wesley believed that Christians would eventually reach a point in this life where they would never sin.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 10:45 AM
It's been a hot theological issue for awhile. Even John Wesley believed that Christians would eventually reach a point in this life where they would never sin.

Really? I thought that point was after death.

KingsGambit
03-28-2015, 10:48 AM
Really? I thought that point was after death.

I think so too. :wink:

mossrose
03-28-2015, 10:51 AM
I grew up in a denomination that taught perfection after salvation.

It never sat right with me, and I couldn't reconcile it with scripture.

It is not just John that mentions the issue. Paul addresses it in Romans 7:


14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.


Scripture is very clear that believers are still bound in this body to the sin nature that we struggle against. As has already been stated, John tells us that if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Habitual, continual, unrepented sin is another matter.

Cerebrum123
03-28-2015, 11:01 AM
Is this a parody? Because John even says that if someone claims to be without sin, he's a liar, or something like that. Here's a verse.

Given Yttrium's posting history, including this thread, no it's not a parody. You bring up a great point though. :yes:

Yttrium
03-28-2015, 11:20 AM
It is not just John that mentions the issue. Paul addresses it in Romans 7:

Interesting. I didn't notice that before. Thanks, mossrose.

mossrose
03-28-2015, 01:46 PM
Interesting. I didn't notice that before. Thanks, mossrose.

:smile:

37818
03-28-2015, 02:18 PM
There is a sense which Christians do not sin. Keeping in mind what mossrose and Christianbookworm have already explained (Romans 7:14-25 and 1 John 1:9-2:2).

". . . Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. . . ." -- 1 John 3:6.

This is not speaking of sinless perfection as some professing Christians profess Rather it is the legal standing of the believer under God's grace. Not license (Romans 3:8) but grace (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-10).

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." -- 1 John 3:4.
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all." -- James 2:10.

". . . Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression. . . ." -- Romans 4:15.
". . . For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. . . ." -- Romans 6:14.
". . . if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. . . ." -- Galatians 5:18.

". . . I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. . . ." -- Galatians 2:21.

So it is ". . . Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." -- Romans 3:31.

". . . Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. . . ." -- Romans 3:19.

". . . Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. . . ." -- Galatians 3:24, 25.

This is just a brief. Need to read the gospel of John & 1 John. Romans and Galatians.

whag
03-28-2015, 02:51 PM
There are a number of statements in the book of 1 John about the nature of Christians and sin. It's worded almost as a paradox. It says that Christians cannot and do not sin... but that nonetheless, Christians do sin, and when they do, they have recourse to be forgiven by Jesus... and that for that matter, if one claims to be sinless, they are a liar. The general way this is reconciled, which I agree with, is that true Christians will continue to sin, but their lives will not reflect a pattern of ongoing sin, and when they do sin, they will feel genuine remorse and repent.

This is a very murky issue. As you know, some Christians sin frequently and are stubborn to admit it (Thomas Kinkaide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kinkade) is an example that comes to mind, but there are many others), while some non-believers don't have anything approximating a "pattern of ongoing sin" because they're naturally kind and considerate people. When the latter group sins (for example, loses one's temper, cheats on spouse, etc), they feel remorse and fess up. There are many examples of these kinds of people.

There's so much overlap between these groups as to create no clear distinction between "Christians who sin" and "nonbelievers who are sinners." Generally speaking, we all "sin" the same amount, and Christians aren't any better at feeling remorse and apologizing to those they have hurt.

Soyeong
03-28-2015, 03:11 PM
I've also seen Christians go to the opposite extreme and claim that we sin continuously, but I don't think either of them have it right. Christians are set free from our sin nature, not in the sense that we no longer have it, but in the sense that it is no longer our master. We are set free from one master to come under a new master in service to God to live in obedience to His commands. I understand statements, such as 1 John 3:6, about Christians not sinning to be talking about intentional sin. If we love God, we are in Christ, and Christ is in us, then how can we willfully choose to transgress His law? If we realize that doing in sinful, then we should become convicted and refrain from doing it. To know that something is sinful and to do it anyway is an act of rebellion against God. How can we say we know God if we live in rebellion to Him?

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 03:13 PM
Yeah, how does continuous sinning make sense? That you could always be doing something even better than what you are doing right now???

Soyeong
03-28-2015, 03:15 PM
A recent thread asking how long you can go without sinning:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/xo-how-long-can-you-go-sinning-6029663.0.html

KingsGambit
03-28-2015, 03:17 PM
When I was in college, there was a fairly notorious itinerant preacher named "Brother Jed" who would come by a few times a year. He claimed that he had not sinned since 1969. However, I could see clear evidence to the contrary with his false judgments of people. One example was how he once yelled at a male and female walking to class together, accusing them of fornication... when they were actually a brother and sister.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 03:19 PM
Reading the thread. :argh: How can you sin while dreaming??? You aren't responsible for anything that happens in them.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 03:20 PM
When I was in college, there was a fairly notorious itinerant preacher named "Brother Jed" who would come by a few times a year. He claimed that he had not sinned since 1969. However, I could see clear evidence to the contrary with his false judgments of people. One example was how he once yelled at a male and female walking to class together, accusing them of fornication... when they were actually a brother and sister.

Huh. Lying and hypocrisy? Pride? Sins of the heart vs sins of the flesh?

Soyeong
03-28-2015, 03:21 PM
This is a very murky issue. As you know, some Christians sin frequently and are stubborn to admit it (Thomas Kinkaide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kinkade) is an example that comes to mind, but there are many others), while some non-believers don't have anything approximating a "pattern of ongoing sin" because they're naturally kind and considerate people. When the latter group sins (for example, loses one's temper, cheats on spouse, etc), they feel remorse and fess up. There are many examples of these kinds of people.

There's so much overlap between these groups as to create no clear distinction between "Christians who sin" and "nonbelievers who are sinners." Generally speaking, we all "sin" the same amount, and Christians aren't any better at feeling remorse and apologizing to those they have hurt.

I have no idea what what being naturally kind an considerate people as to do with no having a pattern of ongoing sin.

Cerebrum123
03-28-2015, 03:22 PM
Reading the thread. :argh: How can you sin while dreaming??? You aren't responsible for anything that happens in them.

Actually, I've been able to control a few dreams once in them. Although, I can't think of any time that I did anything other than say fly around, or similar.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 03:24 PM
Actually, I've been able to control a few dreams once in them. Although, I can't think of any time that I did anything other than say fly around, or similar.

Well, yes there is lucid dreaming, but I don't know how one could sin in it. Create a sinful fantasy? Why?

whag
03-28-2015, 03:24 PM
I've also seen Christians go to the opposite extreme and claim that we sin continuously, but I don't think either of them have it right. Christians are set free from our sin nature, not in the sense that we no longer have it, but in the sense that it is no longer our master. We are set free from one master to come under a new master in service to God to live in obedience to His commands. I understand statements, such as 1 John 3:6, about Christians not sinning to be talking about intentional sin.

Please give an example of "unintentional" sin.



If we love God, we are in Christ, and Christ is in us, then how can we willfully choose to transgress His law? If we realize that doing in sinful, then we should become convicted and refrain from doing it. To know that something is sinful and to do it anyway is an act of rebellion against God. How can we say we know God if we live in rebellion to Him?

This doesn't really clarify anything. What constitutes willful rebellion vs. unintentional rebellion? *scratches head*

whag
03-28-2015, 03:28 PM
I have no idea what what being naturally kind an considerate people as to do with no having a pattern of ongoing sin.



I have no idea what you mean by willful rebellion vs. unintentional rebellion. Let's start there and weave discussion of our treatment of one another into the discussion from there.

Yttrium
03-28-2015, 03:34 PM
Yeah, how does continuous sinning make sense? That you could always be doing something even better than what you are doing right now???

I saw one Calvinist point of view in the previous forums that basically concluded we're all living in continuous sin. The idea was that humans are all complete scum and worthy of eternal agony in Hell, but God preselects certain people to be saved through grace. Sounded like a pretty depressing outlook to me.

Soyeong
03-28-2015, 03:38 PM
Please give an example of "unintentional" sin.

Basically doing something without consciously being aware that what you were doing was in violation of God's law. This can range from simply being ignorant of all of God's laws, to having a conversation with someone and realizing afterward that it had crossed the line into gossip, to not realizing that pepperoni pizza that you ate contains pork.


This doesn't really clarify anything. What constitutes willful rebellion vs. unintentional rebellion? *scratches head*

If you know that something is wrong and you do it anyway, that is a different sort of action than doing something wrong without realizing it.

whag
03-28-2015, 04:07 PM
Basically doing something without consciously being aware that what you were doing was in violation of God's law. This can range from simply being ignorant of all of God's laws, to having a conversation with someone and realizing afterward that it had crossed the line into gossip, to not realizing that pepperoni pizza that you ate contains pork.

That renders your phrase "willful rebellion" meaningless. The term rebellion alone will do. As for the above offenses, nice try. Christians sin more blatantly than engaging in unintentional gossip and eating porky pepperoni (is that even a sin, dude? LOL). The whole point of the thread is that Christians sin knowingly--something your post seems to object to:


If we love God, we are in Christ, and Christ is in us, then how can we willfully choose to transgress His law? If we realize that doing in sinful, then we should become convicted and refrain from doing it. To know that something is sinful and to do it anyway is an act of rebellion against God. How can we say we know God if we live in rebellion to Him?

That question clarifies nothing.





If you know that something is wrong and you do it anyway, that is a different sort of action than doing something wrong without realizing it.

I understand that. I don't understand your attempt to distinguish "unwillful rebellion" (e.g., bacon eating, ignorance of specific laws, etc.) from "willful rebellion," which you're coming awfully close to saying Christians can't possibly commit. Quite obviously, very many do commit such sins, and that's why it's a quandary. That's why it's shocking to Christians whenever a pastor scandal occurs. Thus, none of what you said sheds any light on this issue, IMHO.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 05:34 PM
Basically doing something without consciously being aware that what you were doing was in violation of God's law. This can range from simply being ignorant of all of God's laws, to having a conversation with someone and realizing afterward that it had crossed the line into gossip, to not realizing that pepperoni pizza that you ate contains pork.



If you know that something is wrong and you do it anyway, that is a different sort of action than doing something wrong without realizing it.

We are not under the Old Covenant. Also, unclean =/= sin. :rant:

whag
03-28-2015, 05:35 PM
It's been a hot theological issue for awhile. Even John Wesley believed that Christians would eventually reach a point in this life where they would never sin.

If sin is so inevitable in people, even those who have Christ assisting their resistance, how is it that God counted on Adam and every generation that proceeded from him to never sin? That's an unrealistically high expectation of generation upon generation of human beings.

That's one of the reasons I find the Bible's foundational story to be unbelievable.

mossrose
03-28-2015, 05:36 PM
If sin is so inevitable in people, even those who have Christ assisting their resistance, how is it that God counted on Adam and every generation that proceeded from him to never sin? That's an unrealistically high expectation of generation upon generation of human beings.

That's one of the reasons I find the Bible's foundational story to be utterly unbelievable.

Where does it say that God counted on Adam and every generation that proceeded from him to never sin?

And you seem to sending up duplicate posts in this thread.

whag
03-28-2015, 05:49 PM
Where does it say that God counted on Adam and every generation that proceeded from him to never sin?

And you seem to sending up duplicate posts in this thread.

Sin caused death. Clearly, God expected perfection from human beings so as not to introduce that consequence.

Bill the Cat
03-28-2015, 05:54 PM
Sin caused death. Clearly, God expected perfection from human beings so as not to introduce that consequence.

Do you think that Adam's sin took God by surprise?

whag
03-28-2015, 06:01 PM
Do you think that Adam's sin took God by surprise?

That's an absurd question. If I say "no," that implicates God for creating a set of circumstances which was doomed to fail in the first generation. If I say "yes," that refutes the necessary divine attribute of omniscience.

mossrose
03-28-2015, 06:14 PM
Sin caused death. Clearly, God expected perfection from human beings so as not to introduce that consequence.


That doesn't answer my question regarding your statement. God certainly did not expect anyone, including Adam and Eve, to be sinless, and I want to know where you read that He does in scripture, as that is what you implied.

Bill the Cat
03-28-2015, 06:19 PM
That's an absurd question. If I say "no," that implicates God for creating a set of circumstances which was doomed to fail in the first generation. If I say "yes," that refutes the necessary divine attribute of omniscience.

It's not absurd. You seem to want to set God up for "expecting perfection" and now want to try to wiggle out of answering a question on what that "expecting perfection" means.

whag
03-28-2015, 06:27 PM
It's not absurd. You seem to want to set God up for "expecting perfection" and now want to try to wiggle out of answering a question on what that "expecting perfection" means.

I'm not trying to wiggle out of answering. In fact, I gave you two answers but with the qualification that they're both problematic.

Forget the word "perfection," then. What, according to Christianity, was God's expectation of humanity?

Bill the Cat
03-28-2015, 06:28 PM
I'm not trying to wiggle out of answering. In fact, I gave you two answers but with the qualification that they're both problematic.

Forget the word "perfection," then. What, according to Christianity, was God's expectation of humanity?

To behave just as He foreknew they would. He knew man would not live up to His standard, and already had a plan to allow man to be forgiven for their shortfall.

Soyeong
03-28-2015, 06:35 PM
That renders your phrase "willful rebellion" meaningless. The term rebellion alone will do. As for the above offenses, nice try. Christians sin more blatantly than engaging in unintentional gossip and eating porky pepperoni (is that even a sin, dude? LOL). The whole point of the thread is that Christians sin knowingly--something your post seems to object to:

Indeed, rebellion is wilful, so your phrase would be redundant. When Christians sin intentionally and habitually, they are living in rebellion to God.


That question clarifies nothing.

It's in reference to the previously quoted verses.


I understand that. I don't understand your attempt to distinguish "unwillful rebellion" (e.g., bacon eating, ignorance of specific laws, etc.) from "willful rebellion," which you're coming awfully close to saying Christians can't possibly commit. Quite obviously, very many do commit such sins, and that's why it's a quandary. That's why it's shocking to Christians whenever a pastor scandal occurs. Thus, none of what you said sheds any light on this issue, IMHO.

How can someone accurately claim to be a follower of Christ if they live in rebellion to his commands? Their actions demonstrate that they are not a follower of Christ in spite of their claims otherwise.

whag
03-28-2015, 06:43 PM
To behave just as He foreknew they would. He knew man would not live up to His standard, and already had a plan to allow man to be forgiven for their shortfall.



If the shortfall is inbuilt, there's nothing for which to be forgiven. The capacity to achieve that standard is absent.

Bill the Cat
03-28-2015, 06:45 PM
If the shortfall is inbuilt, there's nothing for which to be forgiven.

Wrong.


The capacity to achieve that standard is absent.

Hence the need for Jesus.

whag
03-28-2015, 06:50 PM
Indeed, rebellion is wilful, so your phrase would be redundant. When Christians sin intentionally and habitually, they are living in rebellion to God.

No, your phrase is redundant. That wasn't my phrase.








How can someone accurately claim to be a follower of Christ if they live in rebellion to his commands? Their actions demonstrate that they are not a follower of Christ in spite of their claims otherwise.
You might wanna ask King David that. He committed a lot of "willful rebellion" (again, your phrase) despite being a lover of God.

Soyeong
03-28-2015, 06:54 PM
We are not under the Old Covenant.

God instructions for how to do good works/live rightly/practice righteousness/avoid sin exist independently any particular covenant that offers rewards for keeping them and punishments for disobeying him. As Paul said in Romans 7:7a, it's God's instructions that inform us of what sin is. We are saved by grace through faith, not by practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness.



Also, unclean =/= sin. :rant:

There's a difference between eating unclean animals and being ceremonially unclean. For instance, someone who was in the same room with a dead body would become ceremonially unclean, but they would not be sinning. They could go home and eat a kosher meal that would become ceremonially unclean when they touched it, but they again would not be sinning. Jesus became ceremonially unclean when he was touched by the woman with bleeding problems in Mark 5, but again that wasn't a sin. However, God instructs that eating unclean animals is a sin.

Soyeong
03-28-2015, 06:56 PM
Genesis 3 is basically God saying, "this is who you are, and this is who I am - the savior of the world."

Soyeong
03-28-2015, 07:01 PM
No, your phrase is redundant. That wasn't my phrase.

You were the first to use it. :shrug:


You might wanna ask King David that. He committed a lot of "willful rebellion" (again, your phrase) despite being a lover of God.

He did not live in habitual sin, but was quick to repent of it.

whag
03-28-2015, 07:24 PM
You were the first to use it. :shrug:

You're right. My bad. I was extrapolating from your uses of intention and will in distinguishing between two types of sin. I assumed you equate sin with rebellion.




He did not live in habitual sin, but was quick to repent of it.

So your point about Christians not partaking in "willful sin" would be incorrect? Christians often willfully sin, and that's to be expected, so long as they are quick to repent of it before marrying another wife.

Soyeong
03-28-2015, 07:59 PM
You're right. My bad. I was extrapolating from your uses of intention and will in distinguishing between two types of sin. I assumed you equate sin with rebellion.

Intentional sin is rebellion, but again, unintentional rebellion doesn't make a lot of sense.


So your point about Christians not partaking in "willful sin" would be incorrect? Christians often willfully sin, and that's to be expected, so long as they are quick to repent of it before marrying another wife.

Christians are free from our sin nature in the sense that it is no longer our master, not in the sense that we can no longer wilfully sin. Christians do willfully sin, which is a rebellious act, but we can repent of our actions, so that we are not living in rebellion to God. If you are living in rebellion to God, then you can't honestly claim to be a follower of Christ.

To repent is not just saying your sorry, but rather it is admitting that you are wrong, that God is right, and surrendering to His will. If we try to do a better job next time of living in obedience to God through our own effort, we'll just end up making the same mistakes over and over again. Only God can change us by His Spirit working in us to make us more obedient to His will. Planning to repent later misses the whole point of repentance because you are still doing what you think is right instead of surrendering to God's will.

JimL
03-28-2015, 08:17 PM
true Christians will continue to sin, but their lives will not reflect a pattern of ongoing sin,
What?:raisehand:

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 08:22 PM
God instructions for how to do good works/live rightly/practice righteousness/avoid sin exist independently any particular covenant that offers rewards for keeping them and punishments for disobeying him. As Paul said in Romans 7:7a, it's God's instructions that inform us of what sin is. We are saved by grace through faith, not by practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness.




There's a difference between eating unclean animals and being ceremonially unclean. For instance, someone who was in the same room with a dead body would become ceremonially unclean, but they would not be sinning. They could go home and eat a kosher meal that would become ceremonially unclean when they touched it, but they again would not be sinning. Jesus became ceremonially unclean when he was touched by the woman with bleeding problems in Mark 5, but again that wasn't a sin. However, God instructs that eating unclean animals is a sin.

Guess you never heard of God telling Peter to eat unclean animals in a vision?

Soyeong
03-28-2015, 08:44 PM
Guess you never heard of God telling Peter to eat unclean animals in a vision?

Peter's vision indicates that he did not think of Christ's death and resurrection as having done away with the law, but that he was still acting in accordance with it . If God was just telling him was that it was now ok to eat unclean animals, then he wouldn't have been wondering about it's meaning afterwards. Rather, visions have figurative meanings rather than literal meanings, and it was the figurative meaning that Peter was wondering about, which stated later in the chapter:

Acts 10:28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

The law that Peter is referring to here is found nowhere the Torah, but rather it is a man-made oral law that is being overruled while the Torah is being upheld (Leviticus 19:34). Furthermore, nowhere else in the Bible do we take a vision where the meaning is given and reinterpret it to have its literal meaning.

whag
03-28-2015, 08:45 PM
Wrong.

You said that our inability to meet God's standard is inbuilt, so you'll have to explain why I'm wrong.


Hence the need for Jesus.

A non-sequiter until you explain how the above works.

37818
03-28-2015, 08:49 PM
What?:raisehand:
There is a sense which Christians do not sin. Keeping in mind what mossrose and Christianbookworm have already explained (Romans 7:14-25 and 1 John 1:9-2:2).

". . . Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. . . ." -- 1 John 3:6.

This is not speaking of sinless perfection as some professing Christians profess Rather it is the legal standing of the believer under God's grace. Not license (Romans 3:8) but grace (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-10).

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." -- 1 John 3:4.
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all." -- James 2:10.

". . . Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression. . . ." -- Romans 4:15.
". . . For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. . . ." -- Romans 6:14.
". . . if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. . . ." -- Galatians 5:18.

". . . I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. . . ." -- Galatians 2:21.

So it is ". . . Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." -- Romans 3:31.

". . . Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. . . ." -- Romans 3:19.

". . . Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. . . ." -- Galatians 3:24, 25.

This is just a brief. Need to read the gospel of John & 1 John. Romans and Galatians.

". . . If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. . . . these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate [read an attorney] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world." -- 1 John 1:9, 2:1,2.

". . . Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: . . . saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." -- Jeremiah 31:31, 34.



"

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 08:56 PM
Peter's vision indicates that he did not think of Christ's death and resurrection as having done away with the law, but that he was still acting in accordance with it . If God was just telling him was that it was now ok to eat unclean animals, then he wouldn't have been wondering about it's meaning afterwards. Rather, visions have figurative meanings rather than literal meanings, and it was the figurative meaning that Peter was wondering about, which stated later in the chapter:

Acts 10:28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

The law that Peter is referring to here is found nowhere the Torah, but rather it is a man-made oral law that is being overruled while the Torah is being upheld (Leviticus 19:34). Furthermore, nowhere else in the Bible do we take a vision where the meaning is given and reinterpret it to have its literal meaning.

You are speaking like the judiazers of Paul's day. Cut. It. Out. :glare: Study Galatians and then come back.

whag
03-28-2015, 08:59 PM
". . . If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. . . . these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate [read an attorney] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world." -- 1 John 1:9, 2:1,2.

". . . Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: . . . saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." -- Jeremiah 31:31, 34.



"

I object to the amount of bolding in this post.

Chrawnus
03-28-2015, 09:02 PM
There's a difference between eating unclean animals and being ceremonially unclean. For instance, someone who was in the same room with a dead body would become ceremonially unclean, but they would not be sinning. They could go home and eat a kosher meal that would become ceremonially unclean when they touched it, but they again would not be sinning. Jesus became ceremonially unclean when he was touched by the woman with bleeding problems in Mark 5, but again that wasn't a sin. However, God instructs that eating unclean animals is a sin.

My understanding of the Mosaic purity laws (including the kosher laws) is that they were supposed to set Israel apart from the gentile nations around them. To maintain that we non-Jews are required to follow these dietary laws seems to me to be a denial of what Paul says about Christ having "torn down the dividing wall of hostility" (Ephesians 2:14) (which I believe these laws are symbols of). Why would we have to follow dietary laws that tell us that Jews and gentiles are distinct when Christ has already removed the divide that these laws are supposed to signify? :huh:


ETA: Changed pagan to gentile. :doh:

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 09:07 PM
My understanding of the Mosaic purity laws (including the kosher laws) is that they were supposed to set Israel apart from the gentile nations around them. To maintain that we non-Jews are required to follow these dietary laws seems to me to be a denial of what Paul says about Christ having "torn down the dividing wall of hostility" (Ephesians 2:14) (which I believe these laws are symbols of). Why would we have to follow dietary laws that tell us that Jews and gentiles are distinct when Christ has already removed the divide that these laws are supposed to signify? :huh:


ETA: Changed pagan to gentile. :doh:

Meaning that we have a JUDIAZER in our midst!

Chrawnus
03-28-2015, 09:27 PM
There is also the issue of Acts 15, where the council of Jerusalem decided that the only dietary restrictions the gentile Christians had to observe were that we should avoid meat offered to pagan idols, and eating blood or any animal that has been strangled. Demand anything stricter than that and you're essentially contradicting what the Holy Spirit via the Christian church established as a rule for gentile Christians.

JimL
03-28-2015, 09:34 PM
". . . If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. . . . these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate [read an attorney] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world." -- 1 John 1:9, 2:1,2.

". . . Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: . . . saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." -- Jeremiah 31:31, 34.



"
The above is replete with contradictions. "Christians can't sin because they are not under the law" "But if a Christian should sin he has an advocate to attain forgiveness." Both can't be true!

Bill the Cat
03-29-2015, 05:07 AM
You said that our inability to meet God's standard is inbuilt, so you'll have to explain why I'm wrong.

Because we are the offspring of Adam, and we inherit his propensity to sin, just as God knew would happen.




A non-sequiter until you explain how the above works.

Hence the need for Jesus.

JimL
03-29-2015, 08:18 AM
Because we are the offspring of Adam, and we inherit his propensity to sin, just as God knew would happen.
If God of the bible knew what would happen, then why was he so infuriated when it did? Also if God knew it would happen, if he knew that what he created was flawed, who but himself is responsible for it?





Hence the need for Jesus.
So Jesus is needed as an advocate for his own handywork. "Its not their fault father, please forgive them, after all it was i who created them thus."

Soyeong
03-29-2015, 08:21 AM
You are speaking like the judiazers of Paul's day. Cut. It. Out.

I am in complete agreement with Paul about the Judiazers, so please don't confuse me with them.

"God instructions for how to do good works/live rightly/practice righteousness/avoid sin exist independently any particular covenant that offers rewards for keeping them and punishments for disobeying him. As Paul said in Romans 7:7a, it's God's instructions that inform us of what sin is. We are saved by grace through faith, not by practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness."

This argument is pretty much as simple as it gets, so it's only badly misunderstood theology, such as not understanding the context of what the Judaizers wanted, that twists it. Practicing righteousness in obedience to God's commands is just as important to the Jews as it is to the Gentiles:

1 John 2:3-6 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

1 John 3:4-10 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: [b]whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Jesus was sinless, so he kept the law perfectly, and he taught others how to understand and keep it, such as in Matthew 5. The goal of a disciple was to become a copy of their rabbi by learning how to think and act like them. Jesus taught by example and his disciples tried to model their behavior after him, which would have been included in the Great Commission. Up until Peter's vision in Acts 10, all of the Christians were either Jews and or Gentile proselytes, so for around at least 7 years after Jesus' ascension, Gentiles who were interested in following God were being taught to obey the law. Do you think they said, "Hold on folks, if you wait 10 more years our good friend Paul will write you a letter so you can know what to do"? No, they learned from what they had: the OT Scriptures, and oral traditions for how to keep the law, which possibly oral traditions of the teachings of the Messiah. The Bereans in Acts 17:11 checked everything Paul told them against the OT Scriptures, so there was nothing in Paul's message that was in disagreement with them. So how can we say that we walk in the way that Jesus walked if we don't follow the same commands he did for how to practice righteousness and we don't teach others to do the same?

--

In order to understand the Judaizers, you need to understand the oral law, which consisted of interpretations, rulings, and traditions for how to keep the written law of the Torah, and fences around it to help protect it from being transgressed. So for instance, the Jews took a command, such as not to work on the Sabbath, rigorously defined what counted as work, like how far someone can walk, then set up a fence around that to help prevent anyone from accidentally walking too far. Another example of a fence is when Jesus said that even looking at a woman lustfully was committing adultery. Jesus followed and gave some oral laws, so not all of them were bad, but what would become 24 chapters in the Mishna for how to keep the Sabbath ended up being a heavy burden and a perversion of what was intended to be a simple day of rest. This is what was referred to as the traditions of the elders and what Jesus argued against in Mark 7:1-9.

However, a common Jewish thought was that you couldn't keep the Sabbath without knowing all of the detailed instructions in the oral law for how to keep it and they traced the command for the oral law back to Moses, so they gave it an equal or greater importance than the written law (Mark 7:6-9). In their minds, you couldn't teach the laws of Moses without teaching their instructions for for how to keep it, so when they wanted to require Gentiles to keep the laws of Moses in order to be saved in Acts 15:1, that included their oral laws. What Paul referred to as a heavy burden was what would become 26 volumes of the Talmud for how to keep a law that was a small fraction of the size. So what he rejected was both their oral laws and the idea that we could become justified by keeping them.

I am in complete agreement with Paul that we are saved by grace through faith, not by practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness, which the Judaizers would not have agreed with, so please don't falsely accuse me of that.


Study Galatians and then come back.

I have studied Galatians and I have been studying it in my congregation for the past 17 or so weeks, going verse by verse. It is an important book, but it is unfortunately also one of the most misunderstood books.

37818
03-29-2015, 09:32 AM
The above is replete with contradictions. "Christians can't sin because they are not under the law" "But if a Christian should sin he has an advocate to attain forgiveness." Both can't be true!And not just forgiveness, but something no believer can achieve under his or her own strength, cleansing from all unrighteousness.

Read Romans 7:1-25. And, do note, it is John who also wrote 1 John 3:4, 6 and 1John 5:1, 18.

One has to do with being in the flesh. The other is the believer's standing with God.

Soyeong
03-29-2015, 09:41 AM
My understanding of the Mosaic purity laws (including the kosher laws) is that they were supposed to set Israel apart from the gentile nations around them. To maintain that we non-Jews are required to follow these dietary laws seems to me to be a denial of what Paul says about Christ having "torn down the dividing wall of hostility" (Ephesians 2:14) (which I believe these laws are symbols of). Why would we have to follow dietary laws that tell us that Jews and gentiles are distinct when Christ has already removed the divide that these laws are supposed to signify?

ETA: Changed pagan to gentile.

Ephesians 2:8-22 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. 11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,[d] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by[e] the Spirit.

Ephesians 2:14-15 (YLT) for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down, 15 the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace,

I included YLT to show that the grammar of the verse in question is not exactly clear what is being broken down or what the enmity is referring to. However, I think we can eliminate your interpretation because Paul just said that we are created in the Messiah to do good works. Why only a few verses later would Paul say that the Messiah did away with his instructions for how to do good works? Furthermore, interpreting this as Jesus abolishing the law is in direct contradiction to his words in Matthew 5:17-19 and in contradiction to Paul's words in Romans 3:31. The context before and after verse 14 is not about Jews being alienated and joining with the Gentiles in their patterns, but about Gentiles being alienated and becoming citizens of Israel through faith in the Messiah. Leviticus 19:34 instructs the Jews to love the Gentiles as themselves, so it was not the law that was acting as a dividing barrier between them.

Josephus speaking of a dividing wall at the Temple in Antiquities of the Jews 15:11:15 and War of the Jews 6:2:4 that separated the Jews and the Gentiles, which forbade Gentiles from entering on pain of death. Bringing a Gentile past this point was what Paul was accused of in Acts 21:27-29. Just as the veil in the Temple was torn when the Messiah died, allowing everyone in Messiah to enter God's presence in the Holy of Holies, the Messiah also removed the barrier preventing Gentiles from mixing with and being counted with God's people. Gentiles can now join the Jewish people and be one with them as God's people through faith in the Messiah.

Another interpretation is that the word for “loosed” (translated as broken down) is used to Judaism in regard to making judgments about how to keep the Torah. To “loose” something meant to permit it while to “bind” meant to prohibit it. So the Pharisees had prohibited Jews from associating with Gentiles (Acts 10:28) and Jesus was loosing or removing that prohibition. This is what is being talked about here:

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[a] in heaven.

The word for hedge (translated as middle wall of separation) is another technical term in Judaism in that’s often used in the Mishna to make a hedge or fence around the Torah, or to make a prohibition beyond what it instructs to help prevent anyone from getting close to breaking it.

The terms taken together as “loosed the hedge” could be taken to mean that Jesus was permitting what another group had prohibited, also known as the rabbinic law that’s being talked about in Acts 10:28. Perhaps Paul was using wordplay, but either way it refers to the same thing.

We can also take a hint from the fact that the Greek word for "ordinances" is the word "dogma", which is usually refers to man-made laws. It is only through faith in God and the working of the Spirit within us that we are able to keep God's instructions for practicing righteousness in the way that Jesus did, and God is not at odds with Himself, so I think there are a number of good reasons why we shouldn't think Ephesians 2:14 is talking about the law that Jesus gave to Moses. As Ephesians 2:10 and 1 John 2:9-10 state, being in the Messiah means that we are to do good works/practice righteousness, so it is not the law that separates us, but rather it is being obedient to the law in the Messiah that unifies us into one people of God.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 10:21 AM
Ephesians 2:8-22 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. 11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,[d] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by[e] the Spirit.

Ephesians 2:14-15 (YLT) for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down, 15 the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace,

I included YLT to show that the grammar of the verse in question is not exactly clear what is being broken down or what the enmity is referring to. However, I think we can eliminate your interpretation because Paul just said that we are created in the Messiah to do good works. Why only a few verses later would Paul say that the Messiah did away with his instructions for how to do good works? Furthermore, interpreting this as Jesus abolishing the law is in direct contradiction to his words in Matthew 5:17-19 and in contradiction to Paul's words in Romans 3:31. The context before and after verse 14 is not about Jews being alienated and joining with the Gentiles in their patterns, but about Gentiles being alienated and becoming citizens of Israel through faith in the Messiah. Leviticus 19:34 instructs the Jews to love the Gentiles as themselves, so it was not the law that was acting as a dividing barrier between them.

Based on the fact that your post barely deals with what I said at all and instead goes into a tangent that has practically nothing to do at all with what I wrote I'm not so sure you even understand my interpretation at all. First of all, I do not read the Mosaic Law as consisting purely of instructions of how to do good works. As Deut 14:2 and 21 indicate, God introduced the dietary laws because the Hebrews were supposed to be a nation set apart from the rest of the world. They were in effect serving as a reminder to the people of Israel that they had been singled out amongst all other nations by God Himself. In this way they signified the divide between Jew and Gentile. So "doing away" with dietary laws (or rather, insisting that Gentiles do not need to follow them) is not the same as doing away with instructions for good works, given that the dietary laws have nothing to do with practicing good works. They fulfill another purpose altogether. Another thing indicating that these laws fulfill not a moral purpose, but a another purpose altogether is that Deut 14:21 also teaches that Jews are allowed to give carcasses, which they themselves are forbidden to eat, to temporary residents in their cities, who are allowed to eat them, should they so desire.

It's this understanding that makes me conclude that since Jesus has torn down the dividing wall of hostility between Jews and Gentile (which I agree is speaking about the alienation of Gentiles and becoming citizens of Israel) there is no need for Gentiles to follow the dietary laws in the OT, because these dietary laws signify the very divide that Jesus removed in the first place. Insisting that Gentiles have to follow this law would under my interpretation of what these laws be the same as denying that the rift between Jew and Gentile has been removed.

I removed the rest of the post because it essentially had absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote in my previous post.

Paprika
03-29-2015, 10:23 AM
I have studied Galatians and I have been studying it in my congregation for the past 17 or so weeks, going verse by verse. It is an important book, but it is unfortunately also one of the most misunderstood books.

The best way to cut through the 'Paul was talking about oral law, not the Mosaic Law' nonsense is to go to Galatians 3 where Paul speaks of the Law given to Moses 430 years after the promises to Abraham, the Law that was a guardian, but which those in Christ are no longer under.

Then one goes to Romans 7 to show why Christians are not under the Law: not because the Law is abolished or destroyed (so the Matthew 5 objection fails) but because we have died to the Law, and here to support this point Paul clearly refers to the marriage law from Mosaic Law, not oral law.

Paprika
03-29-2015, 10:24 AM
Ephesians 2:14-15 (YLT) for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down, 15 the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace,

I included YLT to show that the grammar of the verse in question is not exactly clear what is being broken down [/quote]
The Greek seems rather clear to me: it is τὸν νόμον, the law, that was καταργήσας.


or what the enmity is referring to.
It is very clear. Circumcision is used as synecdoche for the Law which divided and hence caused enmity between Jew and Gentile.


However, I think we can eliminate your interpretation because Paul just said that we are created in the Messiah to do good works. Why only a few verses later would Paul say that the Messiah did away with his instructions for how to do good works?
That's a terrible objection: the Law isn't the only means for us to know what good works are; amongst many others with have the Wisdom literature, the Prophets, the Gospels, and most importantly the Spirit.


Leviticus 19:34 instructs the Jews to love the Gentiles as themselves, so it was not the law that was acting as a dividing barrier between them.
The Law acted as a dividing barrier because it kept the Gentiles from the citizenship of Israel, the covenants of promise, of the hope to be found amongst the Jews.


Furthermore, interpreting this as Jesus abolishing the law is in direct contradiction to his words in Matthew 5:17-19 and in contradiction to Paul's words in Romans 3:31. The context before and after verse 14 is not about Jews being alienated and joining with the Gentiles in their patterns, but about Gentiles being alienated and becoming citizens of Israel through faith in the Messiah.
It is the enmity that is destroyed, in his flesh the Law which divides is nullified. And why? See Romans 7, as above.

Paprika
03-29-2015, 10:29 AM
Meaning that we have a JUDIAZER in our midst!
Soyeong is different from the Judaizers in some ways but he makes the same moral demands that Christians need to abide by the Mosaic Law. It is therefore a different gospel and needs to be blown out of the water.

JimL
03-29-2015, 10:41 AM
And not just forgiveness, but something no believer can achieve under his or her own strength, cleansing from all unrighteousness.

Read Romans 7:1-25. And, do note, it is John who also wrote 1 John 3:4, 6 and 1John 5:1, 18.

One has to do with being in the flesh. The other is the believer's standing with God.
That doesn't clear up your contradiction. Christians can't be both unable to sin, and need an advocate to propitiate for them should they sin.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 10:55 AM
"God instructions for how to do good works/live rightly/practice righteousness/avoid sin exist independently any particular covenant that offers rewards for keeping them and punishments for disobeying him. As Paul said in Romans 7:7a, it's God's instructions that inform us of what sin is. We are saved by grace through faith, not by practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness."

But not every prohibition or command in the Mosaic Law is a prohibition against a moral sin, or command to do a moral good. This is obvious for instance (which I'm assuming that you agree with me on), by the fact that animal sacrifices are no longer needed, given that the self-giving sacrifice of Jesus has rendered them obsolete. So in effect a part of the Mosaic Law (the sacrificial laws) were rendered obsolete in the sense that they are no longer obligatory for us to follow.



This argument is pretty much as simple as it gets, so it's only badly misunderstood theology, such as not understanding the context of what the Judaizers wanted, that twists it. Practicing righteousness in obedience to God's commands is just as important to the Jews as it is to the Gentiles:

1 John 2:3-6 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

1 John 3:4-10 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

1 John 2:3-6 is not talking about the Mosaic commandments, it is talking about Jesus teaching in the gospel of John to His followers that they should love one another. Following the Mosaic commandments has nothing to do with this love. And verse 6 is not speaking about Jesus following the Mosaic commandments perfectly either (although he did follow them), but about his walk self-denial and self-sacrifice, which we are exhorted to follow, as per Mark 8:34-35.


15 “If you love Me, you will keep [B]My commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever. 17 He is the Spirit of truth. The world is unable to receive Him because it doesn’t see Him or know Him. But you do know Him, because He remains with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.

19 “In a little while the world will see Me no longer, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live too. 20 In that day you will know that I am in My Father, you are in Me, and I am in you. 21 The one who has My commands and keeps them is the one who loves Me. And the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father. I also will love him and will reveal Myself to him.”

22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it You’re going to reveal Yourself to us and not to the world?”

23 Jesus answered, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 The one who doesn’t love Me will not keep My words. The word that you hear is not Mine but is from the Father who sent Me.

25 “I have spoken these things to you while I remain with you. 26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit—the Father will send Him in My name—will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you.


9 “As the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you. Remain in My love. 10 If you keep My commands you will remain in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commands and remain in His love.

11 “I have spoken these things to you so that My joy may be in you and your joy may be complete. 12 This is My command: Love one another as I have loved you. 13 No one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do what I command you. 15 I do not call you slaves anymore, because a slave doesn’t know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything I have heard from My Father. 16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you. I appointed you that you should go out and produce fruit and that your fruit should remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you. 17 This is what I command you: Love one another.

34 Summoning the crowd along with His disciples, He said to them, “If anyone wants to be My follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. 35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of Me and the gospel will save it.



Jesus was sinless, so he kept the law perfectly, and he taught others how to understand and keep it, such as in Matthew 5. The goal of a disciple was to become a copy of their rabbi by learning how to think and act like them. Jesus taught by example and his disciples tried to model their behavior after him, which would have been included in the Great Commission. Up until Peter's vision in Acts 10, all of the Christians were either Jews and or Gentile proselytes, so for around at least 7 years after Jesus' ascension, Gentiles who were interested in following God were being taught to obey the law. Do you think they said, "Hold on folks, if you wait 10 more years our good friend Paul will write you a letter so you can know what to do"? No, they learned from what they had: the OT Scriptures, and oral traditions for how to keep the law, which possibly oral traditions of the teachings of the Messiah. The Bereans in Acts 17:11 checked everything Paul told them against the OT Scriptures, so there was nothing in Paul's message that was in disagreement with them. So how can we say that we walk in the way that Jesus walked if we don't follow the same commands he did for how to practice righteousness and we don't teach others to do the same?


Matthew 5 deals with the moral parts of the law, which are written in the hearts of every person, as per Romans 2:15. It has nothing to say on the matter of parts of the moral law which are not on moral issues, such as ceremonial laws, and dietary laws.

Also, proselytes is the keyword here. Until Acts 10 there were only Gentile proselytes amongst the Christians, but after Cornelius, who was not a proselyte converted to the Christian faith, this changed, which ultimately led to the first Christian council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) where it was unambigiously declared that Gentiles do not in fact have to follow the Mosaic law on every matter.



In order to understand the Judaizers, you need to understand the oral law, which consisted of interpretations, rulings, and traditions for how to keep the written law of the Torah, and fences around it to help protect it from being transgressed. So for instance, the Jews took a command, such as not to work on the Sabbath, rigorously defined what counted as work, like how far someone can walk, then set up a fence around that to help prevent anyone from accidentally walking too far. Another example of a fence is when Jesus said that even looking at a woman lustfully was committing adultery. Jesus followed and gave some oral laws, so not all of them were bad, but what would become 24 chapters in the Mishna for how to keep the Sabbath ended up being a heavy burden and a perversion of what was intended to be a simple day of rest. This is what was referred to as the traditions of the elders and what Jesus argued against in Mark 7:1-9.

However, a common Jewish thought was that you couldn't keep the Sabbath without knowing all of the detailed instructions in the oral law for how to keep it and they traced the command for the oral law back to Moses, so they gave it an equal or greater importance than the written law (Mark 7:6-9). In their minds, you couldn't teach the laws of Moses without teaching their instructions for for how to keep it, so when they wanted to require Gentiles to keep the laws of Moses in order to be saved in Acts 15:1, that included their oral laws. What Paul referred to as a heavy burden was what would become 26 volumes of the Talmud for how to keep a law that was a small fraction of the size. So what he rejected was both their oral laws and the idea that we could become justified by keeping them.

This is a pretty good deal of information, but you haven't made any convincing arguments that it was there interpretations, rulings and traditions that the Judaizers demanded Gentile Christians to follow, rather than the law of Moses proper.




I have studied Galatians and I have been studying it in my congregation for the past 17 or so weeks, going verse by verse. It is an important book, but it is unfortunately also one of the most misunderstood books.

Evidently you haven't gotten to Gal 3:19-26 (especially verses 24-25, with verse 19 ruling out beyond question that Paul is talking about the manmade oral laws) which effectively invalidates your equating practicing righteousness with following the Mosaic law. They are not the same.

Soyeong
03-29-2015, 11:22 AM
Based on the fact that your post barely deals with what I said at all and instead goes into a tangent that has practically nothing to do at all with what I wrote I'm not so sure you even understand my interpretation at all.

I thought showing the context and arguing for why your interpretation couldn't be correct while giving reasonable interpretations that don't conflict with other verses in the Bible would be relevant. :shrug:


First of all, I do not read the Mosaic Law as consisting purely of instructions of how to do good works. As Deut 14:2 and 21 indicate, God introduced the dietary laws because the Hebrews were supposed to be a nation set apart from the rest of the world. They were in effect serving as a reminder to the people of Israel that they had been singled out amongst all other nations by God Himself. In this way they signified the divide between Jew and Gentile. So "doing away" with dietary laws (or rather, insisting that Gentiles do not need to follow them) is not the same as doing away with instructions for good works, given that the dietary laws have nothing to do with practicing good works. They fulfill another purpose altogether. Another thing indicating that these laws fulfill not a moral purpose, but a another purpose altogether is that Deut 14:21 also teaches that Jews are allowed to give carcasses, which they themselves are forbidden to eat, to temporary residents in their cities, who are allowed to eat them, should they so desire.

However, you want to look at it, disobeying God's instructions is a sin while obeying them is doing a good work or practicing righteousness. If moral laws are only in regard to man's relationship with man, then all of the first four of the Ten Commandments are not moral commands, including the prohibition of idolatry. On the other hand, if moral laws are in regard to man's relationship with God, then all of God's commands are moral laws.

Matthew 5:14-16 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that[b] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

God wants His people to be the light of the world, so did that change now that Gentiles are no longer alienated and part of His people? Should Gentiles not shine their light before others by doing the good works that God has instructed through His Spirit to give glory to God? God already has all the glory and the only thing that pleases Him is when He does good works through us. Gentiles are now part of God's people not because the distinction has been removed, but because Gentiles are now part of that distinction through faith in Messiah.

whag
03-29-2015, 11:26 AM
This has devolved into a distinctly boring discussion.

Yttrium
03-29-2015, 11:31 AM
This has devolved into a distinctly boring discussion.

I was hoping that a Christian who followed the Christians-don't-sin belief would drop by, but I guess there aren't any lurking around these days.

Adrift
03-29-2015, 11:38 AM
I was hoping that a Christian who followed the Christians-don't-sin belief would drop by, but I guess there aren't any lurking around these days.

I don't think any Christian really believes that, or if they do, you've likely misunderstood what they mean when they say it. Maybe somewhere out there in this great big goofy world of ours someone is saying it and means it in the way you understand it, but if so, they're clearly in the extreme minority.

Yttrium
03-29-2015, 11:40 AM
I don't think any Christian really believes that, or if they do, you've likely misunderstood what they mean when they say it. Maybe somewhere out there in this great big goofy world of ours someone is saying it and means it in the way you understand it, but if so, they're clearly in the extreme minority.

Well, that's a big part of what I wanted to know, so thanks for the information.

whag
03-29-2015, 11:42 AM
I was hoping that a Christian who followed the Christians-don't-sin belief would drop by, but I guess there aren't any lurking around these days.

I think he's already here in the name of Soyeong. He basically said Christians don't commit "intentional" sins, since such wouldn't reflect a genuine love of Christ.

That's as close I think you'll get to someone who believes Christians don't sin.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 11:50 AM
I thought showing the context and arguing for why your interpretation couldn't be correct while giving reasonable interpretations that don't conflict with other verses in the Bible would be relevant. :shrug:

My interpretation conflicts with your interpretation of other verses in the Bible, but you haven't yet established that your interpretations are correct.



However, you want to look at it, disobeying God's instructions is a sin while obeying them is doing a good work or practicing righteousness.

Disobeying God's instructions are a sin, but not all of God's instructions are directed towards everyone. The commandments of the Mosaic law are a requirement only for those under the old covenant which God established with the Jews and no one else, they are not binding for those (Jews and Gentile) who have joined the new covenant. There are teachings and commandments in the new covenant that are identical to those of the old covenant, but that does not mean that every single command of the mosaic law is simply carried over to the new covenant.



If moral laws are only in regard to man's relationship with man, then all of the first four of the Ten Commandments are not moral commands, including the prohibition of idolatry. On the other hand, if moral laws are in regard to man's relationship with God, then all of God's commands are moral laws.

Where have I even implied the bolded? But even under your understanding of moral laws being in regards to man's relationship with God it does not follow logically that all of God's commands are moral laws.



Matthew 5:14-16 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that[b] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

God wants His people to be the light of the world, so did that change now that Gentiles are no longer alienated and part of His people? Should Gentiles not shine their light before others by doing the good works that God has instructed through His Spirit to give glory to God? God already has all the glory and the only thing that pleases Him is when He does good works through us. Gentiles are now part of God's people not because the distinction has been removed, but because Gentiles are now part of that distinction through faith in Messiah.

It would be wise of you to remember that Gentiles were in fact not forbidden from becoming part of God's people by way of proselytizing long before Jesus accomplished his work of removing the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. In other words, Gentiles had the option of becoming part of that distinction long before Christ, and therefore your understanding of what Ephesians 2:14-15 could not possibly be correct, since the existence of Gentile proselytes would indicate that the divide/distinction never existed in the first place.

And following the dietary laws are not going to make us the light of the world. No one is going to look at someone refusing to eat pork and proclaim: "Look at that man, what a righteous soul he is for refusing to eat pork, I can really see the love of God emanating from him."

Yttrium
03-29-2015, 11:50 AM
I think he's already here in the name of Soyeong. He basically said Christians don't commit "intentional" sins, since such wouldn't reflect a genuine love of Christ.

That's as close I think you'll get to someone who believes Christians don't sin.

Yeah, but he's more of a "Christians sin now and then, but then we repent for the sin" kind of guy.

Yttrium
03-29-2015, 11:56 AM
The commandments of the Mosaic law are a requirement only for those under the old covenant which God established with the Jews and no one else, they are not binding for those (Jews and Gentile) who have joined the new covenant.

Jews I've encountered have said the same thing. Not to mention the Christians I know. I can't imagine Christians starting to follow the Mosaic law in large numbers. It would be a tragedy. Restaurants would stop serving pork and shellfish. I'm not sure I could handle that.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 11:59 AM
This has devolved into a distinctly boring discussion.

This is TWeb, what did you honestly expect? :shrug:

whag
03-29-2015, 12:05 PM
Yeah, but he's more of a "Christians sin now and then, but then we repent for the sin" kind of guy.

I submit he couldn't name one skeptic who ever claimed that Christians who sin don't seek repentance thereafter. It's a rebuttal to a concocted position.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 12:10 PM
I've also seen Christians go to the opposite extreme and claim that we sin continuously, but I don't think either of them have it right. Christians are set free from our sin nature, not in the sense that we no longer have it, but in the sense that it is no longer our master. We are set free from one master to come under a new master in service to God to live in obedience to His commands. I understand statements, such as 1 John 3:6, about Christians not sinning to be talking about intentional sin. If we love God, we are in Christ, and Christ is in us, then how can we willfully choose to transgress His law? If we realize that doing in sinful, then we should become convicted and refrain from doing it. To know that something is sinful and to do it anyway is an act of rebellion against God. How can we say we know God if we live in rebellion to Him?

I would amen this post, but I cannot do it given that I now know that you by the bolded mean the Mosaic commandments.

Soyeong
03-29-2015, 12:17 PM
The best way to cut through the 'Paul was talking about oral law, not the Mosaic Law' nonsense is to go to Galatians 3 where Paul speaks of the Law given to Moses 430 years after the promises to Abraham, the Law that was a guardian, but which those in Christ are no longer under.

If someone is driving down a road that has a 70 mph speed limit, but they are driving with their wife who doesn't like him driving too fast, so he sets the cruise control to 60 mph, then he is no longer under that law. That law is there as a guardian to prevent people from driving recklessly, but by exceeding its minimum requirements out of love for his wife, he is driving as though that law didn't exist. The penalties of the law are not for the righteous, but for the unrighteous. When we act out of love for God in a way that exceeds the minimum requirements of the law, we are showing that we are mature enough in Christ to not a guardian.

Note also that Paul was saying new covenants don't do away with the promises of the previous ones.


Then one goes to Romans 7 to show why Christians are not under the Law: not because the Law is abolished or destroyed (so the Matthew 5 objection fails) but because we have died to the Law, and here to support this point Paul clearly refers to the marriage law from Mosaic Law, not oral law.

In Romans 7, Paul is not using an metaphor where every part of it represents something else, but rather, he is using an example from the law. For instance, are we represented by the wife? No, because we are dying to the law and it is the husband who died. Are we represented by the husband? No, because it is the wife who is now free to belong a new master. It just doesn't work that way.

Furthermore, if wife's husband died, then she would not be free from any of the other laws, but would be freed only from that aspect of the law that would penalize her if she were to live with another man while her husband was still alive. If her husband died and she married anther man, she would again be bound to obey that aspect of the law.

When Christ paid our penalty for our transgression of law, he set us free from that aspect of the law that would penalize us or condemn us to death for breaking it. The law didn't go anywhere and we didn't stay dead, but what changed is that we are freed from our old master, our sin nature, and are free to come under a new master, to become slaves of righteousness, and to live in obedience to His commands for how to practice righteousness and avoid sin.

Romans 6:15-19 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.


Soyeong is different from the Judaizers in some ways but he makes the same moral demands that Christians need to abide by the Mosaic Law. It is therefore a different gospel and needs to be blown out of the water.

A different Gospel is anything other than being saved by grace through faith, not be practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness. A different Gospel is one that says we are saved by becoming Jews and obeying all of the laws of Moses, including the oral law. A different Gospel is the one that tells Gentiles that it's not important to practice righteousness and that Gentiles are not set free from sin to become slaves to righteousness. A different Gospel is one that tells Gentiles that it's unimportant to behave in the way that Jesus did, that sanctification is not about being transformed into the character of Christ.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 12:21 PM
A different Gospel is anything other than being saved by grace through faith, not be practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness. A different Gospel is one that says we are saved by becoming Jews and obeying all of the laws of Moses, including the oral law. A different Gospel is the one that tells Gentiles that it's not important to practice righteousness and that Gentiles are not set free from sin to become slaves to righteousness. A different Gospel is one that tells Gentiles that it's unimportant to behave in the way that Jesus did, that sanctification is not about being transformed into the character of Christ.

A different gospel is also one that equates practicing righteousness with following the laws of the Mosaic commandment.

Christianbookworm
03-29-2015, 12:25 PM
:sigh: Know what? The two covenants can be compared to two different apartment leases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_QACgqKtT8&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLapIcULLvvedXjciEM2cngaxcjxjM0AiU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpPYWUvez9c&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLapIcULLvvedXjciEM2cngaxcjxjM0AiU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMS4WNIP6ks&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLapIcULLvvedXjciEM2cngaxcjxjM0AiU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Eg1Thv0ow&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLapIcULLvvedXjciEM2cngaxcjxjM0AiU

whag
03-29-2015, 03:01 PM
:sigh: Know what? The two covenants can be compared to two different apartment leases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_QACgqKtT8&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLapIcULLvvedXjciEM2cngaxcjxjM0AiU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpPYWUvez9c&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLapIcULLvvedXjciEM2cngaxcjxjM0AiU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMS4WNIP6ks&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLapIcULLvvedXjciEM2cngaxcjxjM0AiU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Eg1Thv0ow&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLapIcULLvvedXjciEM2cngaxcjxjM0AiU

Stop with the JPH cartoons. They're embarrassing.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 03:05 PM
Stop with the JPH cartoons. They're embarrassing.

To the fundy atheists they expose, maybe. :shrug:

whag
03-29-2015, 03:34 PM
To the fundy atheists they expose, maybe. :shrug:

That's what Jack Chick fans think Chick does. Holding is more aesthetically embarrassing than Chick and a YEC to boot.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 03:38 PM
That's what Jack Chick fans think Chick does. Holding is more aesthetically embarrassing than Chick and a YEC to boot.

He's also way more well-read on biblical issues than you are, which you demonstrate nearly every time you write something about the bible. In terms of reading the bible like a fundy you're probably closer to Jack Chick than what Holding is. :shrug:

whag
03-29-2015, 03:47 PM
He's also way more well-read on biblical issues than you are, which you demonstrate nearly every time you write something about the bible. In terms of reading the bible like a fundy you're probably closer to Jack Chick than what Holding is. :shrug:

He's so well read he believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old. :clap:

I'm not impressed by his amount of reading but rather his comprehension. Don't support your arguments with his cartoons lest you be laughed at.

Bill the Cat
03-29-2015, 03:53 PM
He's so well read he believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old. :clap:

I'm not impressed by his amount of reading but rather his comprehension. Don't support your arguments with his cartoons lest you be laughed at.

We call that poisoning the well, Whag. :shifty:

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 03:57 PM
We call that poisoning the well, Whag. :shifty:

I call it unintentional irony.

whag
03-29-2015, 04:05 PM
We call that poisoning the well, Whag. :shifty:

His technique is rooted in ad hom, which is also fallacious. JPH and goons pick and choose what fallacies they're okay with.

Moreover, YEC is seen in a negative light precisely because it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of religious literature, which speaks directly to Holding being "well read." Comprehension is more important.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 04:10 PM
He's so well read he believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old. :clap:

Not that I guess that it would matter to you, but Holding has (IIRC) stated that he doesn't hold firmly to the YEC position, that he hasn't studied the issue extensively and that it wouldn't bother him one bit if he found out that it wasn't supportable by evidence. By well-read I'm speaking specifically on the topics which he deals with, such as honor-shame, cultural background of the bible and so on.



I'm not impressed by his amount of reading but rather his comprehension. Don't support your arguments with his cartoons lest you be laughed at.

Where exactly has he showcased a lack of comprehension?

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 04:16 PM
His technique is rooted in ad hom, which is also fallacious. JPH and goons pick and choose what fallacies they're okay with.

Another case of unintentional irony. You're claiming that Holding lacks comprehension, and then immediately after you accuse him of habitually using the ad hominem fallacy, which is manifestly false, which can be proven simply by reading his writings. Insulting someone during a debate/discussion is not the same as committing the ad hominem fallacy, you harebrained idiot. (See? I just insulted you without committing any fallacy what so ever.)



Moreover, YEC is seen in a negative light precisely because it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of religious literature, which speaks directly to Holding being "well read." Comprehension is more important.

As I wrote previously, Holding has never claimed to be well-read on the issue of TE vs OEC vs YEC. I dare you however, to try and demonstrate his lack of comprehension on any of the topics which he does deal with.

Christianbookworm
03-29-2015, 04:32 PM
Another case of unintentional irony. You're claiming that Holding lacks comprehension, and then immediately after you accuse him of habitually using the ad hominem fallacy, which is manifestly false, which can be proven simply by reading his writings. Insulting someone during a debate/discussion is not the same as committing the ad hominem fallacy, you harebrained idiot. (See? I just insulted you without committing any fallacy what so ever.)



As I wrote previously, Holding has never claimed to be well-read on the issue of TE vs OEC vs YEC. I dare you however, to try and demonstrate his lack of comprehension on any of the topics which he does deal with.

Whag probably thinks none of those options work and that God wasn't involved in creating the universe period!

whag
03-29-2015, 04:36 PM
Not that I guess that it would matter to you, but Holding has (IIRC) stated that he doesn't hold firmly to the YEC position, that he hasn't studied the issue extensively and that it wouldn't bother him one bit if he found out that it wasn't supportable by evidence.

If he hasn't studied the issue, there's literally no reason--NONE--to be inclined to believe it. If there is, tell me one. Not dozens. Not even two. Just one.


By well-read I'm speaking specifically on the topics which he deals with, such as honor-shame, cultural background of the bible and so on.

He's milked "honor-shame" for all it's worth. The cultural context of the bible isn't a unique thing to know about or cite--atheists and Christians reference historic context in equal measure. You needn't look up to him because he claims to know about the importance of context, like he's unique or something. If he knew anything about context, the last thing he'd be is inclined to believe YEC, so there's a big clue about how sophisticated he is re: context.


Where exactly has he showcased a lack of comprehension?

I'm bored by Holding and don't want to get in a tit for tat on his intellectual credibility. If you think his cartoons are helpful evangelical tools, by all means continue to use them. =)

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 04:44 PM
If he hasn't studied the issue, there's literally no reason--NONE--to be inclined to believe it. If there is, tell me one. Not dozens. Not even two. Just one.

I'm not going to try and guess Holding's reasons for holding to the YEC position.



He's milked "honor-shame" for all it's worth. The cultural context of the bible isn't a unique thing to know about or cite--atheists and Christians reference historic context in equal measure. You needn't look up to him because he claims to know about the importance of context, like he's unique or something. If he knew anything about context, the last thing he'd be is inclined to believe YEC, so there's a big clue about how sophisticated he is re: context.

Cultural context =/= historic context. It seems you're intent on shoving your foot in your mouth every time you decide to post and expose your own ignorance. You're not exactly a paragon of sophistication yourself, are you? :lolo:



I'm bored by Holding and don't want to get in a tit for tat on his intellectual credibility. If you think his cartoons are helpful evangelical tools, by all means continue to use them. =)

You were the one that claimed that Holding lacks comprehension, and now you're unwilling to support that claim?

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 04:53 PM
I'm not going to try and guess Holding's reasons for holding to the YEC position.


But to answer your question, here is one reason why someone (more specifically myself) who hasn't studied the issues in-depth might still hold to the YEC position:


. . .I hold to YEC, but I hold it to be such an inconsequental part of my faith that I simply don't feel the need to defend it, or mention it, except in cases such as this, as a disclaimer of full disclosure. It might well be that if I studied evolution and various interpretations of the creation story in Genesis more closely that I would change my understanding of the creation story, and become an OEC, or even a TE (or maybe I should say Theistic Creationist* in order not to offend someone's sensibilities). The reason I haven't engaged in a study such as the above this is precisely because I think it is inconsequental. There are far more important things for me to read up on, such as the Trinity, the resurrection of Christ, faith, justification, the relationship between grace, works and salvation and so on. In the long run, unless there is a practical application in my life due to the truth of evolution I don't see how it matters one bit if I believe in evolution or not. . . .

*Should read Evolutionary Creationist.

whag
03-29-2015, 05:05 PM
But to answer your question, here is one reason why someone (more specifically myself) who hasn't studied the issues in-depth might still hold to the YEC position:



*Should read Evolutionary Creationist.

You're what's properly known as an apathetic creationist, inclined to believe the earth is 10,000 years old MERELY because of religion. Nothing else but religion gets you to that point.

And don't think for a minute that your apathy is impressive. No one is impressed when someone shrugs his shoulders when asked about established science that human beings nobly struggled to extract from the world and from which you benefit daily.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 05:14 PM
And don't think for a minute that your apathy is impressive.

:ahem:

Yes, because that's exactly what I was going for.

whag
03-29-2015, 05:29 PM
:ahem:

Yes, because that's exactly what I was going for.

It was. You mean for it to look detached and reasoned, when it's in fact unnecessarily skeptical of epistemology solely due to religion and nothing else.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 05:33 PM
It was. You mean for it to look detached and reasoned, when it's in fact unnecessarily skeptical of epistemology solely due to religion and nothing else.

No, I mean for it to look apathetic because me knowing if the theory of evolution is true or not will have no significance on my life. I would rather direct my intellectual curiosity on topics that actually matter to me.

whag
03-29-2015, 05:42 PM
No, I mean for it to look apathetic because me knowing if the theory of evolution is true or not will have no significance on my life.

That's a cop out if I ever heard one. If evolution is true, which it is, knowing your primate origins gives you a richer teleology and more profound knowledge of self. Moreover, it helps you talk to potential converts who know the evidence but may be puzzled on how to reconcile their actual primate nature with a NT replete with Adamic references.


I would rather direct my intellectual curiosity on topics that actually matter to me.

Only boring people limit their intellectual curiosity to dogma. Your animal nature should matter to you, since it's largely what drives your darkest impulses.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 05:51 PM
That's a cop out if I ever heard one. If evolution is true, which it is, knowing your primate origins gives you a richer teleology and more profound knowledge of self. Moreover, it helps you talk to potential converts who know the evidence but may be puzzled on how to reconcile their actual primate nature with a NT replete with Adamic references.

My primate origins, if I do have a primate ancestor, does in no way make any difference to teleology. It has no bearing on the issue of my purpose and the question of why I was created. And everything that I need to know about myself is readily available to me without recourse to the findings of evolutionary theory.



Only boring people limit their intellectual curiosity to dogma. Your animal nature should matter to you, since it's largely what drives your darkest impulses.

I said topics that actually matter to me, not dogma. My list of topics in the post I quoted was never intended to be exhaustive in any way. And I can affirm the existence of my animal (base) nature without having to affirm evolutionary theory.

whag
03-29-2015, 06:27 PM
My primate origins, if I do have a primate ancestor, does in no way make any difference to teleology. It has no bearing on the issue of my purpose and the question of why I was created. And everything that I need to know about myself is readily available to me without recourse to the findings of evolutionary theory.

Your purpose is made more complicated by God's never having protected your ancestors in an Eden. You have a more protracted, far less sheltered origin that didn't involve rib-ectomy, a TKOGAE, etc.

Non-believers will see your ignorance as a fundamental lack of curiosity, which bespeaks a fear of--or stubborn unwillingness to process--that basic fact.





I said topics that actually matter to me, not dogma. My list of topics in the post I quoted was never intended to be exhaustive in any way.

You chose all religious topics, so I naturally I assumed you meant dogma. What matters to you besides religion that's more fascinating than scientific epistemology--a fairly basic concept to grasp?



And I can affirm the existence of my animal (base) nature without having to affirm evolutionary theory.

No you can't, since your animal nature is specifically apelike and apes have protomorality and violent, territorial, war-like behaviors--and sexuality--similar to ours. By assuming centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes, our closest relatives, are, you reveal your lack of skill to deal with these issues with potential converts. You'd be a poor evangelist in the most challenging circumstances, IOW.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 06:32 PM
No you can't, since your animal nature is specifically apelike and apes have protomorality and violent, territorial, war-like behaviors--and sexuality--similar to ours. By assuming centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes, our closest relatives, are, you reveal your lack of skill to deal with these issues with potential converts. You'd be a poor evangelist in the most challenging circumstances, IOW.

Where have I assumed that centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes are? You're the only one here who is assuming.

whag
03-29-2015, 06:51 PM
Where have I assumed that centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes are? You're the only one here who is assuming.

You need to explain what you mean by "animal base nature" then. What would be the reason for apes similarity with human beings other than close relatedness?

KingsGambit
03-29-2015, 07:35 PM
Is one's disinterest in this area inevitably going to lead to society judging them? There are plenty of things that others find interesting and that are important that I am not particularly interested in; poetry, quantum physics, gardening, Chinese history, Indian mythology. If biological evolution makes somebody else's list, that's okay with me.

whag
03-29-2015, 07:54 PM
Is one's disinterest in this area inevitably going to lead to society judging them? There are plenty of things that others find interesting and that are important that I am not particularly interested in; poetry, quantum physics, gardening, Chinese history, Indian mythology. If biological evolution makes somebody else's list, that's okay with me.

Not "society" -- rather the subjects who he's tasked with showing a sophistication of understanding. And not "judgment" of him but rather his limited religious approach, which undoubtedly would be peppered with Adamic references that would make no sense to an evolutionist who knows Adam is obviously myth.

There are plenty of potential converts who know evolution is true and would regard a Christian's skepticism (clearly he's skeptical if he's inclined to YEC) as based in fear and an inability to process an epistemological fact that should frankly be a doddle to accept given the massive evidence.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 09:43 PM
Not "society" -- rather the subjects who he's tasked with showing a sophistication of understanding. And not "judgment" of him but rather his limited religious approach, which undoubtedly would be peppered with Adamic references that would make no sense to an evolutionist who knows Adam is obviously myth.

I would not refer to Adam at all, but you get points for trying. :thumb:

whag
03-29-2015, 09:47 PM
I would not refer to Adam at all, but you get points for trying. :thumb:

Interesting. Take me through your approach.

Soyeong
03-29-2015, 09:59 PM
But not every prohibition or command in the Mosaic Law is a prohibition against a moral sin, or command to do a moral good. This is obvious for instance (which I'm assuming that you agree with me on), by the fact that animal sacrifices are no longer needed, given that the self-giving sacrifice of Jesus has rendered them obsolete. So in effect a part of the Mosaic Law (the sacrificial laws) were rendered obsolete in the sense that they are no longer obligatory for us to follow.

Morals are about what we ought to do. We ought to obey all of God's commands, so every command that God gives is a moral command. The Nazarite vow involves animals sacrifices (Numbers 6), so when Paul took the vow in Acts 18:18 and paid for the expenses Acts 21:24, those involved animal sacrifices. The book of Hebrews also speaks of priests performing sacrifices in the present tense and was written in part of aleve concerns of not having access to the Temple. Furthermore there will be sacrifices in the Millenium, so regardless of when you think it takes place, it happens after the Messiah's ascension, so these are instances where it is appropriate to be doing animal sacrifices (As well as keeping the Sabbath, new moon, and Feasts) after Jesus' sacrifice. Why is it appropriate to do during Paul's time and during the Millenium, but not appropriate to do now? The destruction of the Temple excuses the sacrifices, but it doesn't excuse keeping the Sabbath, the new moon, and the Feasts.

Another couple questions: Why did God instruct Moses to do sacrifices when God didn't desire sacrifices (Hebrews 10:5)? Why did God instruct Moses to keep the law when Moses was already justified by faith, like Abraham was (Romans 4:1-8)?

I think these two questions hit on a lot of key issues.


1 John 2:3-6 is not talking about the Mosaic commandments, it is talking about Jesus teaching in the gospel of John to His followers that they should love one another. Following the Mosaic commandments has nothing to do with this love. And verse 6 is not speaking about Jesus following the Mosaic commandments perfectly either (although he did follow them), but about his walk self-denial and self-sacrifice, which we are exhorted to follow, as per Mark 8:34-35.

It was Jesus who gave the Torah to Moses, so there is no distinction between his commandments and the law. If you look in the Torah, you will find the same commands to love each other:

Leviticus 19:17 You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 19:33-34 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Matthew 22:34-36 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

I'm honestly dumbfounded that anyone could think that follow the Mosaic commands have nothing to do with love - love is their whole point! In Galatians, it's saying that if you have a full understanding of the law and do what it says, then you will love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said the greatest two commands were about loving God and loving your neighbor, the rest of the commands are just fleshing out what that looks like.

The Talmud tells a story of Rabbi Hillel, who lived around the time of Jesus. A pagan came to him saying that he would convert to Judaism if Hillel could teach him the whole of the Torah in the time he could stand on one foot. Rabbi Hillel replied, "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it." (Talmud Shabbat 31a).

Certainly self-denial and self-sacrifice are part of following Jesus, but so is following the example he set through obedience to Torah.


11 “I have spoken these things to you so that My joy may be in you and your joy may be complete. 12 This is My command: Love one another as I have loved you. 13 No one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do what I command you. 15 I do not call you slaves anymore, because a slave doesn’t know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything I have heard from My Father. 16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you. I appointed you that you should go out and produce fruit and that your fruit should remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you. 17 This is what I command you: Love one another.

The only thing new about this command is that it says to love one another as I have loved you rather than as yourself. Jesus kept the Torah perfectly, among other reasons, so that we would have the perfect example to follow for how to love God and how to love one another, not so that we wouldn't have to.


Matthew 5 deals with the moral parts of the law, which are written in the hearts of every person, as per Romans 2:15. It has nothing to say on the matter of parts of the moral law which are not on moral issues, such as ceremonial laws, and dietary laws.

God's commands ought to be followed, so every part of it is a moral issue.


Also, proselytes is the keyword here. Until Acts 10 there were only Gentile proselytes amongst the Christians, but after Cornelius, who was not a proselyte converted to the Christian faith, this changed, which ultimately led to the first Christian council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) where it was unambigiously declared that Gentiles do not in fact have to follow the Mosaic law on every matter.

I explained earlier about the oral law and how Jews did not think that you could teach the laws of Moses properly without it, so in their minds that oral law was part of what they were wanting Gentiles to be required to to do in order to be saved. God didn't give the law to Moses because He thought His people could use a heavy legalistic burden, but rather so that His people who he had declared righteous by grace through faith would know how practice righteousness. His law was intended to be a delight to keep and the Psalmists understood that, just read Psalms 1:1-2 and Psalms 119. Is it just possible that Paul, who said, "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" was in full agreement with the Psalms and that he was not rejecting the law for the Gentiles, but was rejecting the legalist perversion of the law that the Pharisees had turned it into and were trying to hoist onto the Gentiles? By that, I mean what would become a 26 volume set known as the Talmud for how to keep a law that is a small fraction of the size. Did Jesus instruct Moses and the Israelites to keep the law and then criticize the Pharisees for placing a heavy burden on the people by having them keep it or did he criticize the Pharisees for keeping their own traditions instead of God's law? See Mark 7:6-9.


This is a pretty good deal of information, but you haven't made any convincing arguments that it was there interpretations, rulings and traditions that the Judaizers demanded Gentile Christians to follow, rather than the law of Moses proper.

The quickest argument is probably that the law is what informs us what sin is (Romans 7:7a) and Paul said that being under grace didn't mean that we were free to sin (Romans 6:15). Another argument would be:

Romans 9:30-32 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness[d] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

The problem here is not that that the Jews kept the law, but that they kept it in the wrong way. They kept it legalistically as though righteousness they sought were works rather than by faith and they should have kept the law by faith as the Gentiles did.

Romans 2:26-27 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded[b] as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically[c] uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code[d] and circumcision but break the law.

How does this hold any weight if Paul had no expectation that there were Gentiles in Roman that were keeping the law? Having a circumcised heart is important to both Jews and Gentiles, and we regard that people have it based on whether they keep the law.

Romans 3:27-31 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Paul makes the point that we are saved by faith apart from the works of the law, but to head off that anyone might misunderstand him and think that obeying the law was unimportant, he asked in verse 31 if our faith abolishes the law. By no means! Our faith upholds the law.

More to the point...if you had a list of instructions for how God wanted people to behave, as a demonstration of your faith and love, why wouldn't you want to be obedient?


Evidently you haven't gotten to Gal 3:19-26 (especially verses 24-25, with verse 19 ruling out beyond question that Paul is talking about the manmade oral laws) which effectively invalidates your equating practicing righteousness with following the Mosaic law. They are not the same.

I agree that Paul is not talking about oral laws here, however, Paul is talking about a different type of righteousness.

Romans 10:5-6 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down)

The issue is that there are two types of righteousness: one by living rightly in obedience to the law and one by faith. God is holy and His righteous standard is perfection, so the only way to be declared righteous by practicing righteousness is by living in perfect obedience to the law. But all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so the only way for us to be declared righteous is by God's righteousness being in us by faith and God declaring that to be righteous. However, being declared righteous is just the beginning of the Christian walk. After we are set free from sin, we are to become slaves of obedience, which leads to righteousness and sanctification (Romans 6:15-19). As Ephesians 2:8-10 is saying, we are saved by grace through faith, not by practicing righteousness, but for the purpose of practicing righteousness. Our faith should lead us to practicing righteousness, and in this way, it upholds the law (Romans 3:31).





EDIT:


This is a pretty good deal of information, but you haven't made any convincing arguments that it was there interpretations, rulings and traditions that the Judaizers demanded Gentile Christians to follow, rather than the law of Moses proper.

I forgot to mention, the biggest indication that this is about the oral law and not the written, is that the commandment for all Gentiles to become circumcised in not found anywhere in the Torah, nor is there a commandment given for how a Gentile is to become a proselyte. These are both part of the oral law.

37818
03-30-2015, 06:18 AM
That doesn't clear up your contradiction. Christians can't be both unable to sin, and need an advocate to propitiate for them should they sin.
It is not my contradiction, it is yours. Maybe you might want explain how it is contradictory.

MaxVel
03-30-2015, 06:36 AM
Your purpose is made more complicated by God's never having protected your ancestors in an Eden. You have a more protracted, far less sheltered origin that didn't involve rib-ectomy, a TKOGAE, etc.

Non-believers will see your ignorance as a fundamental lack of curiosity, which bespeaks a fear of--or stubborn unwillingness to process--that basic fact.






You chose all religious topics, so I naturally I assumed you meant dogma. What matters to you besides religion that's more fascinating than scientific epistemology--a fairly basic concept to grasp?




No you can't, since your animal nature is specifically apelike and apes have protomorality and violent, territorial, war-like behaviors--and sexuality--similar to ours. By assuming centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes, our closest relatives, are, you reveal your lack of skill to deal with these issues with potential converts. You'd be a poor evangelist in the most challenging circumstances, IOW.



You really look like a concern troll.

Paprika
03-30-2015, 07:12 AM
The best way to cut through the 'Paul was talking about oral law, not the Mosaic Law' nonsense is to go to Galatians 3...
Then one goes to Romans 7

Now observe the gymnastics:

If someone is driving down a road that has a 70 mph speed limit, but they are driving with their wife who doesn't like him driving too fast, so he sets the cruise control to 60 mph, then he is no longer under that law. That law is there as a guardian to prevent people from driving recklessly, but by exceeding its minimum requirements out of love for his wife, he is driving as though that law didn't exist.
"When you drive below the speed limit one is no longer under the law :lmbo:


Note also that Paul was saying new covenants don't do away with the promises of the previous ones.
Your point being?


In Romans 7, Paul is not using an metaphor where every part of it represents something else, but rather, he is using an example from the law.
No one has claimed that. Stop burning strawmen.


Furthermore, if wife's husband died, then she would not be free from any of the other laws, but would be freed only from that aspect of the law that would penalize her if she were to live with another man while her husband was still alive. If her husband died and she married anther man, she would again be bound to obey that aspect of the law.
It is the husband who is free from the Law by dying. Paul's point is that (but I repeat myself) "the Law is binding on a person only as long as he lives (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7%3A1&version=ESV)". The wife is freed only because the husband died and they were previously bound together by Law. That's it.


When Christ paid our penalty for our transgression of law, he set us free from that aspect of the law that would penalize us or condemn us to death for breaking it.
Note how being "released from the Law (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7%3A6&version=ESV)" per Paul becomes release from "that aspect of the law that would penalize us or condemn us to death for breaking it". It's just eisegesis in a desperate attempt to save the position.

Soyeong
03-30-2015, 11:35 AM
My interpretation conflicts with your interpretation of other verses in the Bible, but you haven't yet established that your interpretations are correct.

There were man-made laws that were preventing Jews and Christians from worshiping together and from associating with each other, which essentially treated Gentiles as though they were second-class citizens. If the law was abolished, for instance, in regard to how Jews should dress themselves in a distinctive manner, then it would be Jews conforming to Gentile patterns contrary to what Paul was saying. Furthermore, those man-made laws would still exist as act as a wall between Jews and gentiles being one people of God. Paul's point in the verses before and after were no longer second-class citizens, but that in Messiah they were full citizens of the commonwealth of Israel.


Disobeying God's instructions are a sin, but not all of God's instructions are directed towards everyone. The commandments of the Mosaic law are a requirement only for those under the old covenant which God established with the Jews and no one else, they are not binding for those (Jews and Gentile) who have joined the new covenant. There are teachings and commandments in the new covenant that are identical to those of the old covenant, but that does not mean that every single command of the mosaic law is simply carried over to the new covenant.

The main differences between the old and the renewed covenants are the means of atonement, the power of that atonement, the priesthood which offers the sacrifice, Temple in which the sacrifice is offered, who has access to the covenant, and that the law is being written on our hearts. It's the same law being written on our hearts, so instructions for how to live rightly did not change.

Some laws, such as the instructions to keep the Sabbath were given prior to when the law was given to Moses and Sinai, so it exists as God's instructions for how His people should behave independently of any covenant to keep it. The old covenant was an contract that offered additional rewards and punishments for obeying God's instructions, but independently of that, the Torah is still instructions for how His people should behave. Gentiles are now part of God's people, so they should take His instructions to heart. God's righteous standard doesn't change, so how to behave rightly doesn't change.

I agree that not all laws were intended for everyone to keep, even when the law was first given to Moses. Some were for priests, judges, men, women, foreigners living among them, and for everyone.


Where have I even implied the bolded? But even under your understanding of moral laws being in regards to man's relationship with God it does not follow logically that all of God's commands are moral laws.

I didn't mean to imply anything, I was just making the point that if morality relates to our relationship with God, then all of God's commands are more commands. However, you seem to want to make a distinction where the commands in Matthew 5 are moral commands, but other are not. If you have in mind the commands to keep the Sabbath or God's Feasts are not moral commands, then it would appear that you are making a distinction along the lines of how we relate to man vs how to relate to God.


It would be wise of you to remember that Gentiles were in fact not forbidden from becoming part of God's people by way of proselytizing long before Jesus accomplished his work of removing the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. In other words, Gentiles had the option of becoming part of that distinction long before Christ, and therefore your understanding of what Ephesians 2:14-15 could not possibly be correct, since the existence of Gentile proselytes would indicate that the divide/distinction never existed in the first place.

The wall wasn't in regard to whether Gentiles could become proselytes, but in regard to how the two groups interacted with each other. Contrary to the Torah, the Jews were treating Gentiles like second-class citizens and throughout the Bible they ruled with 100% consistency in favor of the Torah against man-made laws.


And following the dietary laws are not going to make us the light of the world. No one is going to look at someone refusing to eat pork and proclaim: "Look at that man, what a righteous soul he is for refusing to eat pork, I can really see the love of God emanating from him."

Say what you want about head scarves, but you can pretty consistently tell who is a Muslim by the way they dress. They are representatives of Islam and carry the name of Allah, so according to their actions, they can either bring glory to Allah or carry his name in vain.

You've already claimed that self-denial is a way of following the Messiah, but more than that, people also observe your actions. If you act differently from how the world acts, people will question you, and you will have an opportunity for God to shine through you. If you read Jewish testimonies, you will find that many of them were shocked to find that Jesus was Jewish, so when Christians behave as he did, Jews will also notice and you will likewise have another opportunity for God to shine through you. However, when non-believers see in their eyes that you are picking and choosing which of God commands to follow and become turned off to Christianity, then you are not bringing glory to God. So eating Kosher doesn't just demonstrate our love and faith in God through our obedience to Him, but it also acts as an identifier.


I would amen this post, but I cannot do it given that I now know that you by the bolded mean the Mosaic commandments.

It was Jesus who gave the law to Moses, so all of the Mosaic commands are his commands. Jesus fulfilled the law by giving us a fuller understanding of how to keep them and what their intent was, but he didn't say anything to suggest that his commands were a different set from the Mosaic commands. Rather, as Matthew 5:17-19 says, he warned against anyone who would teach to relax even the least of the Mosaic commands. Furthermore, if you take that Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets to mean he did away with the Law, then he also did away with the Prophets, including what they said about his second coming.


A different gospel is also one that equates practicing righteousness with following the laws of the Mosaic commandment.

Someone who practices righteousness is someone behaves rightly, justly, lawfully, or in accordance with God's righteous commands. The Torah was essentially God's instructions for how to behave righteously. I'm really not sure how it's possible for someone to read the OT and come to the conclusion that following the Mosaic law was not seen as practicing righteousness.

Deuteronomy 6:5 And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.”

JimL
03-30-2015, 06:19 PM
It is not my contradiction, it is yours. Maybe you might want explain how it is contradictory.
If you can not see the contradiction in the assertion that "Christians are not able to sin," and "But when Christians do sin they have an advocate in Jesus," then nothing I say can explain it to you.

37818
04-02-2015, 05:18 PM
If you can not see the contradiction in the assertion that "Christians are not able to sin," and "But when Christians do sin they have an advocate in Jesus," then nothing I say can explain it to you.


I do not believe, "Christians are not able to sin."

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." -- 1_1John 1:10.

I do believe Christians have a full and complete forgiveness with God through His Christ.

". . . For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." -- Hebrews 8:12.

JimL
04-02-2015, 07:17 PM
I do not believe, "Christians are not able to sin."

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." -- 1_1John 1:10.

I do believe Christians have a full and complete forgiveness with God through His Christ.

". . . For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." -- Hebrews 8:12.
Thats why I said that your post, and the biblical quotes, in post #53 was full of contradictions. "There is a sense in which Christians can't sin" False! Question. Why do you think that your God only forgives the sins of Christians?

whag
04-02-2015, 08:26 PM
Thats why I said that your post, and the biblical quotes, in post #53 was full of contradictions. "There is a sense in which Christians can't sin" False! Question. Why do you think that your God only forgives the sins of Christians?

"There is a sense in which Christians can't sin" is bollocks, yes. They're known to commit sins just as dark and pre-meditated as any non-believer has commited and with the same pattern of frequency, only followed up with repentance.

Why do they think they're more graced with forgiveness? By virtue of their believing alone. It's silly, yes, but that's what the religion says and it's pretty well established. That we think it's absurd that belief translates to virtue is beside the point. That's clearly what the religion teaches.

JimL
04-03-2015, 03:24 AM
"There is a sense in which Christians can't sin" is bollocks, yes. They're known to commit sins just as dark and pre-meditated as any non-believer has commited and with the same pattern of frequency, only followed up with repentance.

Why do they think they're more graced with forgiveness? By virtue of their believing alone. It's silly, yes, but that's what the religion says and it's pretty well established. That we think it's absurd that belief translates to virtue is beside the point. That's clearly what the religion teaches.
Yes, I knew the answer to that question whag, I just like to hear it coming from christians themselves, perhaps if they actually listen to themselves they will hear how silly a notion that is. It states that all men are evil, according to God, but as long as you believe in him he will forgive your evil ways. Of course they think that that somehow changes once they get into heaven and they will sin no more.

Adrift
04-03-2015, 05:09 AM
What I think is a sad notion is the non-theist's denial of their own sinful behavior, or acknowledgement of it, but with no recourse for forgiveness except that which they attempt to offer themselves. Its a hopeless situation which has ended with so many lost souls taking their own lives to escape.

Sparko
04-03-2015, 10:58 AM
Yes, I knew the answer to that question whag, I just like to hear it coming from christians themselves, perhaps if they actually listen to themselves they will hear how silly a notion that is. It states that all men are evil, according to God, but as long as you believe in him he will forgive your evil ways. Of course they think that that somehow changes once they get into heaven and they will sin no more.

Yeah it sure sounds foolish doesn't it?

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The fact is, if you are a Christian and you have been forgiven, you don't just go on sinning freely. You will still sin from time to time, but you try not to. You try to live your life the way Christ wants you to because he is your Lord and Savior. Being forgiven doesn't give us a free license to sin. Those that believe that are most likely just paying lip service to God and pretending to be Christian.

Romans 6:6 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
...12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

37818
04-03-2015, 12:14 PM
Thats why I said that your post, and the biblical quotes, in post #53 was full of contradictions. "There is a sense in which Christians can't sin" False!Really? OK, so you think it is false:


There is a sense which Christians do not sin. Keeping in mind what mossrose and Christianbookworm have already explained (Romans 7:14-25 and 1 John 1:9-2:2).

". . . Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. . . ." -- 1 John 3:6.

This is not speaking of sinless perfection as some professing Christians profess Rather it is the legal standing of the believer under God's grace. Not license (Romans 3:8) but grace (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-10).

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." -- 1 John 3:4.
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all." -- James 2:10.

". . . Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression. . . ." -- Romans 4:15.
". . . For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. . . ." -- Romans 6:14.
". . . if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. . . ." -- Galatians 5:18.

". . . I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. . . ." -- Galatians 2:21.

So it is ". . . Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." -- Romans 3:31.

". . . Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. . . ." -- Romans 3:19.

". . . Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. . . ." -- Galatians 3:24, 25.

This is just a brief. Need to read the gospel of John & 1 John. Romans and Galatians.

". . . If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. . . . these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate [read an attorney] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world." -- 1 John 1:9, 2:1,2.

". . . Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: . . . saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." -- Jeremiah 31:31, 34.
Specifically why? And specifically what?

Christians who are saved have complete and full forgiveness. Not by any merit on their part. But wholly do to God sending His Son to die on the cross on their behalf. And the claim of the resurrection represents the proof that God really did this.









Question. Why do you think that your God only forgives the sins of Christians?By believing it, one can know (see John 7:17 claim). The reason people become Christians is they come to understand how and why it is true. The wanting God's complete and full forgiveness. The possession of eternal life and the hope of Heaven. Why believe something not understood to be true? So how do you think one becomes a Christian?

KingsGambit
04-03-2015, 12:20 PM
I hope that we are not accusing 1 John in particular of being full of contradictions. I think we should give the author of a short book the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he is doing and is not blatantly contradicting himself throughout the five chapters.

37818
04-03-2015, 02:00 PM
There is a difference between being a sinner and the standing before God not having sin imputed.

whag
04-03-2015, 07:54 PM
What I think is a sad notion is the non-theist's denial of their own sinful behavior, or acknowledgement of it, but with no recourse for forgiveness except that which they attempt to offer themselves. Its a hopeless situation which has ended with so many lost souls taking their own lives to escape.

Yes, because only non-theists take their own lives.

JimL
04-03-2015, 10:13 PM
Really? OK, so you think it is false:
Specifically why? And specifically what?

Christians who are saved have complete and full forgiveness. Not by any merit on their part. But wholly do to God sending His Son to die on the cross on their behalf. And the claim of the resurrection represents the proof that God really did this.








By believing it, one can know (see John 7:17 claim). The reason people become Christians is they come to understand how and why it is true. The wanting God's complete and full forgiveness. The possession of eternal life and the hope of Heaven. Why believe something not understood to be true? So how do you think one becomes a Christian?
Christians having complete and full forgiveness for their sins is not the same thing as "not being able to sin." And I didn't ask "how" I asked "why." Christians are no different than anyone else in that regard, so "why" do you think that God forgives the imperfections of Christians, but doesn't forgive the imperfections of non-Christians?

JimL
04-03-2015, 10:37 PM
Yeah it sure sounds foolish doesn't it?

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The fact is, if you are a Christian and you have been forgiven, you don't just go on sinning freely.
Really? Is someone forcing christians to sin. I guess just non christians go around sinning freely heh?

You will still sin from time to time, but you try not to.
The devil makes you do it?

You try to live your life the way Christ wants you to because he is your Lord and Savior.
Wouldn't it be better if you tried to live a moral life because you believe it is the right way to live, rather than because God wants you to.

Being forgiven doesn't give us free license to sin. Those that believe that are most likely just paying lip service to God and pretending to be Christian.
Why not? Is it because when christians sin its different then when non-christians sin.

Romans 6:6 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Yet, as you admit, christians go on sinning just like everyone else.

...12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
And yet christians are no different in their imperfections than non-christians.

37818
04-04-2015, 12:28 AM
Christians having complete and full forgiveness for their sins is not the same thing as "not being able to sin."Correct. The standing is "abideth in him sinneth not," meaning not under the law, but under grace (Romans 6:14). It is a legal standing (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15). It does not mean "not being able to sin" (1 John 1:10 note).
1) Christians as humans sin. (1 John 1:8, 10).
2) Christians have the standing of "abiding in Christ sinning not." In that sin is not being imputed. (Romans 4:7, 8)
3) In the future resurrection where Christians are resurrected and when living Christians are changed. Their mortal bodies being replaced by immortal bodies (1 Corinthians 15:53). They will then be in the state of "not being able to sin." (1 John 3:2)


And I didn't ask "how" I asked "why." Christians are no different than anyone else in that regard, so "why" do you think that God forgives the imperfections of Christians, but doesn't forgive the imperfections of non-Christians?For no other reason than not believing God's free offer. (John 3:18, 36; 1 John 5:9-12).

JimL all you have to do is understand and believe it is true Christ died for you too (1 John 2:2). God does the rest (John 10:27-29). You see, salvation is the common everyday miracle(power) upon everyone who believes God (Romans 1:16). Are you willing?(John 7:17)

Leonhard
04-04-2015, 12:32 AM
"The righteous falls seven times and rises again." - Proverbs 24:16

We all sin so some extent with barely, Our Lord and Our Lady being the only two completely without sin, and even Our Lady needed to be saved by Christ.

seer
04-04-2015, 04:23 AM
"The righteous falls seven times and rises again." - Proverbs 24:16

We all sin so some extent with barely, Our Lord and Our Lady being the only two completely without sin, and even Our Lady needed to be saved by Christ.

Hey Len, long time no see on this board. I hope all is well.

Leonhard
04-04-2015, 04:28 AM
Hey Len, long time no see on this board. I hope all is well.

Doing well, back from a retreat to a hermit monastery way on an island in Scotland, no phone or internet available. Only God. :smile:

seer
04-04-2015, 05:55 AM
Doing well, back from a retreat to a hermit monastery way on an island in Scotland, no phone or internet available. Only God. :smile:

I love Scotland, lucky you weren't kidnapped and burned by the Presbyterians... :wink: I'm still rather amazed that you went into the Catholic Church. Seeing I came out of her.

Leonhard
04-04-2015, 06:48 AM
I love Scotland, lucky you weren't kidnapped and burned by the Presbyterians... :wink: I'm still rather amazed that you went into the Catholic Church. Seeing I came out of her.

In case you're wondering those big doors can be used for more than exiting. :tongue:

seer
04-04-2015, 07:09 AM
In case you're wondering those big doors can be used for more than exiting. :tongue:

:eek:

whag
04-04-2015, 12:13 PM
"The righteous falls seven times and rises again." - Proverbs 24:16

We all sin so some extent with barely, Our Lord and Our Lady being the only two completely without sin, and even Our Lady needed to be saved by Christ.

Why do you believe Jesus' mother never sinned?

37818
04-05-2015, 02:22 AM
"The righteous falls seven times and rises again." - Proverbs 24:16

We all sin so some extent with barely, Our Lord and Our Lady being the only two completely without sin, and even Our Lady needed to be saved by Christ.

The reason our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin is because He is also God (Mark 10:18). Since only God is sinless in regards to men(humans). His mother professed God to be her savior (Luke 1:47; Romans 3:23; Ecclesiastes 7:20).

Leonhard
04-05-2015, 04:58 AM
His mother professed God to be her savior (Luke 1:47; Romans 3:23; Ecclesiastes 7:20).

Verily Mary the Mother of God was saved by her son.

Leonhard
04-05-2015, 05:02 AM
Why do you believe Jesus' mother never sinned?

This has been a long discussion in the Catholic Church. The Church Fathers were quick to point out that Mary was the greatest believer in all of history, and the one to be given the most grace by whatever standard you care to choose. The perfection and purity, the glory of Christ implies that his throne would have to be very great as well.

So there was mostly consensus that Mary never sinned during her life. However the question remained whether she was born immaculately, as a new Eve, free of any stain of sin, even Eve's. And while there had been a consensus for this for most of the time, it was only recently it was made a dogma binding on all Catholics to believe.

I'm not going to turn this into a discussion on the glories of Mary, though I love talking about them.

Sparko
04-05-2015, 05:18 AM
Really? Is someone forcing christians to sin. I guess just non christians go around sinning freely heh?
Our fallen nature. and by freely sinning I mean sinning and not caring. Or claiming that sin is good.




Wouldn't it be better if you tried to live a moral life because you believe it is the right way to live, rather than because God wants you to.:duh: Sure JimL, then why don't you do that? You don't really need Christ to have eternal life. You can just lead a sinless life. Let me know how that works out for you.



Why not? Is it because when christians sin its different then when non-christians sin.That doesn't even make sense.


Yet, as you admit, christians go on sinning just like everyone else. At it's very basic, when you become a Christian you are doing more than just believing in Christ. You are choosing sides. You can try to live a perfect life on your own, or you can admit that no one can live a perfect life and we need help. Jesus came to help us. He lived a sinless life and died for everyone who chooses to follow him. As I said above, you are welcome to do it yourself and good luck with that.




And yet christians are no different in their imperfections than non-christians.
You got it. The difference is that we realize we are sinners and we want to live better lives and follow Christ. We choose God's side. You choose your own side because of your pride.

JimL
04-05-2015, 08:17 AM
Our fallen nature. and by freely sinning I mean sinning and not caring. Or claiming that sin is good.
In other words its Adams fault that you sin? And whose fault was it that Adam sinned?


:duh: Sure JimL, then why don't you do that? You don't really need Christ to have eternal life. You can just lead a sinless life. Let me know how that works out for you.
First off no one lives what we would call a sinless life unless we have no personal sense at all of right and wrong, and if a reward is the only reason for your not sinning then that is hardly a thing to be honored by a God.



At it's very basic, when you become a Christian you are doing more than just believing in Christ. You are choosing sides.
No, not believing, is not choosing sides, its simply not believing. There are people who are every bit as good in their personal life as a practicing christians are who just don't happen to believe in being rewarded with eternal life for it.

You can try to live a perfect life on your own, or you can admit that no one can live a perfect life and we need help. Jesus came to help us.
We are imperfect beings Sparko, so it is already fact that we will not live perfect lives, and belief in Jesus obviously doesn't change that.

He lived a sinless life and died for everyone who chooses to follow him. As I said above, you are welcome to do it yourself and good luck with that.
Yes, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb who died in order that your continued sinning would be forgiven by him. That makes about as much sense as a screen door on a battleship!


You got it. The difference is that we realize we are sinners and we want to live better lives and follow Christ. We choose God's side. You choose your own side because of your pride
Everyone realizes that they are not perfect and they do not need to be a follower of christ in order to change their ways. You choose the side of pay back rather than doing what is right for its own sake. If there is a God whose actions do you think he would honor more, those seeking a reward, or those who act on principle.

whag
04-05-2015, 08:40 AM
This has been a long discussion in the Catholic Church. The Church Fathers were quick to point out that Mary was the greatest believer in all of history, and the one to be given the most grace by whatever standard you care to choose. The perfection and purity, the glory of Christ implies that his throne would have to be very great as well.

So there was mostly consensus that Mary never sinned during her life. However the question remained whether she was born immaculately, as a new Eve, free of any stain of sin, even Eve's. And while there had been a consensus for this for most of the time, it was only recently it was made a dogma binding on all Catholics to believe.

I'm not going to turn this into a discussion on the glories of Mary, though I love talking about them.

That sounds like a huge extrapolation to me.

37818
04-05-2015, 10:03 AM
Verily Mary the Mother of God was saved by her son.

Mary was the mother of our Lord, the man Jesus the Christ. God is not begotten and has no mother. [Respectfully we disagree here.]
We do agree in that Jesus' mother was saved by God whom her human son was also God in the flesh. Emmanuel (Matthew 1:23).

Chrawnus
04-05-2015, 10:11 AM
Mary was the mother of our Lord, the man Jesus the Christ. God is not begotten and has no mother.

So you think there are two persons then? Jesus, the man, who was born of Mary, and God the Son, Who wasn't? :huh:

Sparko
04-05-2015, 01:53 PM
In other words its Adams fault that you sin? And whose fault was it that Adam sinned?
Adam chose to sin, but he didn't have to. This caused the fall, and all human nature was corrupted because of that choice. Jesus came to fix that.



First off no one lives what we would call a sinless life unless we have no personal sense at all of right and wrong,
That doesn't make any sense.

Jim, Sin is basically doing wrong, rebelling against God. If you choose not to even believe in God, then you don't believe in sin.


and if a reward is the only reason for your not sinning then that is hardly a thing to be honored by a God.That's good, because that is not what Christianity is about. It is about realizing that you are a sinner and that you need forgiveness and that forgiveness comes from God.




No, not believing, is not choosing sides, its simply not believing. There are people who are every bit as good in their personal life as a practicing christians are who just don't happen to believe in being rewarded with eternal life for it.

By not choosing God, you have made your choice: yourself. It's the default. If you are running head long off a cliff and someone tries to stop you and tell you what you are doing, you can either choose to believe him and not run off the cliff, or continue to run off the cliff.


We are imperfect beings Sparko, so it is already fact that we will not live perfect lives, and belief in Jesus obviously doesn't change that.Who said it does? Jesus was the only perfect sinless person. That is why we need him. So you can either choose to follow him, or do it on your own. As you say, nobody is perfect, so good luck with that choice.



Yes, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb who died in order that your continued sinning would be forgiven by him. That makes about as much sense as a screen door on a battleship!
I am sure it does sound foolish to you, who are perishing. Yet there is still hope for you.

1 Corinthians 1:18
[ Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom ] For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.



Everyone realizes that they are not perfect and they do not need to be a follower of christ in order to change their ways. You choose the side of pay back rather than doing what is right for its own sake. If there is a God whose actions do you think he would honor more, those seeking a reward, or those who act on principle.

Except you don't, do you?

If you realize you are not perfect and that sin leads to death, then your principles should tell you to choose Jesus and obey him, instead of mocking him and his followers as you do.

Leonhard
04-05-2015, 02:03 PM
Mary was the mother of our Lord, the man Jesus the Christ.

Agreed, Mary is the Mother of God, in as much as she carried Jesus Christ who is fully God and fully man within her womb.


God is not begotten

Agreed.


and has no mother.

This is where we disagree.


We do agree in that Jesus' mother was saved by God whom her human son was also God in the flesh. Emmanuel (Matthew 1:23).

Amen.

Adrift
04-05-2015, 02:22 PM
Adam chose to sin, but he didn't have to. This caused the fall, and all human nature was corrupted because of that choice. Jesus came to fix that.


That doesn't make any sense.

Jim, Sin is basically doing wrong, rebelling against God. If you choose not to even believe in God, then you don't believe in sin.

That's good, because that is not what Christianity is about. It is about realizing that you are a sinner and that you need forgiveness and that forgiveness comes from God.





By not choosing God, you have made your choice: yourself. It's the default. If you are running head long off a cliff and someone tries to stop you and tell you what you are doing, you can either choose to believe him and not run off the cliff, or continue to run off the cliff.
Who said it does? Jesus was the only perfect sinless person. That is why we need him. So you can either choose to follow him, or do it on your own. As you say, nobody is perfect, so good luck with that choice.


I am sure it does sound foolish to you, who are perishing. Yet there is still hope for you.

1 Corinthians 1:18
[ Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom ] For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.



Except you don't, do you?

If you realize you are not perfect and that sin leads to death, then your principles should tell you to choose Jesus and obey him, instead of mocking him and his followers as you do.

Its a bit underhanded this idea that's being implicitly snuck in that Christians only do good works for some reward at the end. As though we're dogs anticipating a treat for doing a good trick. And that non-theists are better than Christians for doing good works with no desire for reward...a sort of humble-brag to show how much better they are than Christians. I've seen other anti-theists push this argument before, and its so ridiculous. This idea might have some teeth if Christianity was a works based religion, but it isn't. Christians do good works because it naturally flows from our love for God and for people. The two commands that we willingly and delightfully base our lives on. That eternal life follows from making Jesus Lord is a win-win. There's absolutely no dilemma between desiring to do good for goodness' sake, and also recognizing that eternal life comes to those who follow Christ. The good news (literally) is that Christianity is an open club. Everyone is invited, as we once accepted the invitation.

whag
04-05-2015, 03:24 PM
Its a bit underhanded this idea that's being implicitly snuck in that Christians only do good works for some reward at the end. As though we're dogs anticipating a treat for doing a good trick. And that non-theists are better than Christians for doing good works with no desire for reward...a sort of humble-brag to show how much better they are than Christians.

Yes, because this doesn't have any appearance of a humble brag at all.



I've seen other anti-theists push this argument before, and its so ridiculous. This idea might have some teeth if Christianity was a works based religion, but it isn't. Christians do good works because it naturally flows from our love for God and for people.

You're speaking way to generally. Some Christians manage to express their religion this way, while others we've observed clearly don't. The inverse truth is that some skeptics do express compassion and other forms of altruism MUCH better than some Christians. You know this.


The two commands that we willingly and delightfully base our lives on.

Some, not all.


That eternal life follows from making Jesus Lord is a win-win. There's absolutely no dilemma between desiring to do good for goodness' sake, and also recognizing that eternal life comes to those who follow Christ. The good news (literally) is that Christianity is an open club. Everyone is invited, as we once accepted the invitation.

For some Christians to whom good works don't naturally flow, and who express the gospel awkwardly because they aren't nuanced and sensitive (fundamentalists, for example), yes, there is perceptible conflict. Your anecdotal observations are just that.

Adrift
04-05-2015, 04:07 PM
A person who does not love God who he made lord, with all his heart, soul, and mind, and who does not love his neighbor as himself is not following Christ. If good works do not naturally follow from one's faith in Christ, then something is off in their faithfulness.

whag
04-05-2015, 04:20 PM
A person who does not love God who he made lord, with all his heart, soul, and mind, and who does not love his neighbor as himself is not following Christ. If good works do not naturally follow from one's faith in Christ, then something is off in their faithfulness.

What you just said is a perfect invitation to prematurely judge someone who, for whatever reason, isn't expressing good works with the same frequency that you expect her to. For all you know, she's shy and needs time to grow. That doesn't mean something's particularly off in her faith.

Also, "good works" is relative. Pete Enns could be doing good works with great frequency, but you'd perceive those works differently seeing him as almost apostate.

JimL
04-05-2015, 04:30 PM
Adam chose to sin, but he didn't have to. This caused the fall, and all human nature was corrupted because of that choice. Jesus came to fix that.
So, you choose to sin as well, but you don't have to, so how was Adam any different than you? So it would seem obvious that Adam was already in the so called fallen state, so from whom did he inherit it?


That doesn't make any sense.

Jim, Sin is basically doing wrong, rebelling against God. If you choose not to even believe in God, then you don't believe in sin.
Thats your opinion. Obviously non Christians have a sense of right and wrong without attributing it to an objective source.

That's good, because that is not what Christianity is about. It is about realizing that you are a sinner and that you need forgiveness and that forgiveness comes from God.
No, Christianity is about belief in God and the only reason you would need forgiveness from God is so that you get the promised reward. Why else would you need forgiveness?





By not choosing God, you have made your choice: yourself. It's the default. If you are running head long off a cliff and someone tries to stop you and tell you what you are doing, you can either choose to believe him and not run off the cliff, or continue to run off the cliff.
Or you can choose not to believe him and be right because there is no cliff in sight.

Who said it does? Jesus was the only perfect sinless person. That is why we need him. So you can either choose to follow him, or do it on your own. As you say, nobody is perfect, so good luck with that choice.
You are on your own at any rate. Its already been established that you are a sinner, and continue to sin, whether or not you follow Jesus.


I am sure it does sound foolish to you, who are perishing. Yet there is still hope for you.

1 Corinthians 1:18
[ Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom ] For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Its not foolishness to those who are perishing, its just foolishness period. Such an assertion can be made in reverse "Disbelief in the message of the cross is foolishness to those who believe it." The assertion itself means nothing.



Except you don't, do you?
Except I don't what?

If you realize you are not perfect and that sin leads to death, then your principles should tell you to choose Jesus and obey him, instead of mocking him and his followers as you do.
Well, I obviously don't believe that so your point is mute.

Adrift
04-05-2015, 04:45 PM
What you just said is a perfect invitation to prematurely judge someone who, for whatever reason, isn't expressing good works with the same frequency that you expect her to. For all you know, she's shy and needs time to grow. That doesn't mean something's particularly off in her faith.

Also, "good works" is relative. Pete Enns could be doing good works with great frequency, but you'd perceive those works differently seeing him as almost apostate.

:ahem:

JimL
04-05-2015, 06:52 PM
Its a bit underhanded this idea that's being implicitly snuck in that Christians only do good works for some reward at the end. As though we're dogs anticipating a treat for doing a good trick.
Its not underhanded at all, just read Sparko's warning to me implying that being saved is what its all about. "Jesus came to save us" "Good luck to you with the choice of not believing in Jesus."There is still hope for you, but unless you believe in the message of the cross, i.e. in Jesus you will not be saved." Its all about being saved, and the bible makes that explicit over and over. Even the Biblical YHWH makes that explicit in his condemnation of A+E after their disobedience. No fruit from the tree of life for them!

And that non-theists are better than Christians for doing good works with no desire for reward...a sort of humble-brag to show how much better they are than Christians.
Its not humble at all, it just happens to be true that it is nobler to do what is thought to be right because they believe it is right, than to do it in obeyance to an external command with a reward attached.

I've seen other anti-theists push this argument before, and its so ridiculous. This idea might have some teeth if Christianity was a works based religion, but it isn't. Christians do good works because it naturally flows from our love for God and for people.
Naturally flows? And you do bad works, i.e. sin, because why? Because your evil works flow naturally from.......?

The two commands that we willingly and delightfully base our lives on. That eternal life follows from making Jesus Lord is a win-win. There's absolutely no dilemma between desiring to do good for goodness' sake, and also recognizing that eternal life comes to those who follow Christ. The good news (literally) is that Christianity is an open club. Everyone is invited, as we once accepted the invitation.
No one said there was a dilemma, what I implied is that it would be an awfully ridiculous and petty God that punished people that did what was right on principle, rather than in obedience to Jesus, just because they didn't believe the stories told about his existence. Everyone is invited to believe, but its ridiculous to think that disbelief is a sin. or that a God would punish good people for not believing ancient stories. I'll bet you don't believe in Allah, do you?

37818
04-05-2015, 08:05 PM
So you think there are two persons then? Jesus, the man, who was born of Mary, and God the Son, Who wasn't? :huh:The Son of God was only and is only one Person eternally coequal as God with His Father. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are three Persons who are the one God.
One Person who has two natures. In begin born of His human mother Mary He became fully human in nature. His infinite divine nature precedes all created things (John 1:3). And in His divine nature being eternally fully God remains unchanged.

Chrawnus
04-05-2015, 08:25 PM
The Son of God was only and is only one Person eternally coequal as God with His Father. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are three Persons who are the one God.
One Person who has two natures. In begin born of His human mother Mary He became fully human in nature. His infinite divine nature precedes all created things (John 1:3). And in His divine nature being eternally fully God remains unchanged.

Do you believe God the Son was incarnated in the womb of Mary? It seems to me that any person who wants to be orthodox must confirm this belief. And if you believe that the Person growing in Mary's womb was God, then it follows that Mary was the mother of God. If Mary was the mother of Jesus the man, but not the mother of God, then it follows logically that there must be two persons, because mothers are mothers to sons, not to natures.

JimL
04-05-2015, 08:41 PM
The Son of God was only and is only one Person eternally coequal as God with His Father. God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are three Persons who are the one God.
One Person who has two natures. In begin born of His human mother Mary He became fully human in nature. His infinite divine nature precedes all created things (John 1:3). And in His divine nature being eternally fully God remains unchanged.
Were there only 2 persons in the one God when the son left them to visit earth?

Adrift
04-05-2015, 09:40 PM
Its not underhanded at all, just read Sparko's warning to me implying that being saved is what its all about. "Jesus came to save us" "Good luck to you with the choice of not believing in Jesus."There is still hope for you, but unless you believe in the message of the cross, i.e. in Jesus you will not be saved." Its all about being saved, and the bible makes that explicit over and over. Even the Biblical YHWH makes that explicit in his condemnation of A+E after their disobedience. No fruit from the tree of life for them!

You did not get "we're all just trying to get saved" from Sparko's posts.


Its not humble at all, it just happens to be true that it is nobler to do what is thought to be right because they believe it is right, than to do it in obeyance to an external command with a reward attached.

Stop strawmaning. No Christian here believes that the only reason we do good is so we can get something from God. We do good, because God is good, and we love him and we love those he created in his image.


Naturally flows? And you do bad works, i.e. sin, because why? Because your evil works flow naturally from.......?

From our old sin nature. Old habits die hard. But we are to put off the old nature, be renewed in the spirit of our mind, and put on the new. Paul discusses this in passages found in places like Romans 6, Colossians 3, and Ephesians 4.


No one said there was a dilemma, what I implied is that it would be an awfully ridiculous and petty God that punished people that did what was right on principle, rather than in obedience to Jesus, just because they didn't believe the stories told about his existence. Everyone is invited to believe, but its ridiculous to think that disbelief is a sin. or that a God would punish good people for not believing ancient stories. I'll bet you don't believe in Allah, do you?

Our God is a just and fair God, and there won't be anyone who stands before Christ in the end who will justifiably say "I didn't have enough to go on" or "It isn't fair". And yes. I believe in Allah.

37818
04-06-2015, 05:53 AM
Do you believe God the Son was incarnated in the womb of Mary? It seems to me that any person who wants to be orthodox must confirm this belief. And if you believe that the Person growing in Mary's womb was God, then it follows that Mary was the mother of God. If Mary was the mother of Jesus the man, but not the mother of God, then it follows logically that there must be two persons, because mothers are mothers to sons, not to natures.That view is damnable.
He was God before the womb. What was growing was His human body, not his deity. He was one Person. He was the Son of God in His preexistence (Proverbs 30:4).

37818
04-06-2015, 06:09 AM
Were there only 2 persons in the one God when the son left them to visit earth?

God is omnipresent. There is no place anyone can go and not be in God's presence. The Son of God who is also God with the Father, in being a son of man did not cease from being also omnipresent. ". . . the Son of man which is in heaven." -- John 3:13.

Sparko
04-06-2015, 06:38 AM
Yes, because this doesn't have any appearance of a humble brag at all.




You're speaking way to generally. Some Christians manage to express their religion this way, while others we've observed clearly don't. The inverse truth is that some skeptics do express compassion and other forms of altruism MUCH better than some Christians. You know this.



Some, not all.



For some Christians to whom good works don't naturally flow, and who express the gospel awkwardly because they aren't nuanced and sensitive (fundamentalists, for example), yes, there is perceptible conflict. Your anecdotal observations are just that.

You don't earn your way into heaven. You can be the most altruistic athiest/hindu/muslim/etc in the world and it would not get you in to heaven.

Chrawnus
04-06-2015, 06:40 AM
That view is damnable.
He was God before the womb. What was growing was His human body, not his deity. He was one Person. He was the Son of God in His preexistence (Proverbs 30:4).

What view is damnable? I described two views, which one of them do you think is damnable?

Clearly the view that God the Son was in the womb of Mary is not damnable, on the contrary, it's a view that you must hold to in order to be orthodox, because to deny it would mean that you split Christ into two different persons.

In short, the Person growing in Mary's womb was fully God at the moment of conception and from eternity past, He did not grow in divinity as you seem to erroneously think that I'm arguing. But it is still appropriate to say that Mary was the mother of God, because she was the mother of Christ, who as a Person was fully God.

Sparko
04-06-2015, 06:56 AM
So, you choose to sin as well, but you don't have to, so how was Adam any different than you? So it would seem obvious that Adam was already in the so called fallen state, so from whom did he inherit it?
Each person will answer for their own sins. You will answer for yours, I will answer for mine. But my sins are forgiven through Christ, and yours are not.



Thats your opinion. Obviously non Christians have a sense of right and wrong without attributing it to an objective source.That is morality. Not "sin" - sin is disobeying God. It is a religious transgression. If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in sin.


No, Christianity is about belief in God and the only reason you would need forgiveness from God is so that you get the promised reward. Why else would you need forgiveness?
Because I am a sinner. The same reason you need forgiveness.






Or you can choose not to believe him and be right because there is no cliff in sight. That's the chance you have to take. You either trust the warning or you don't. That is what faith is. If you are wrong, then you are going off the cliff and I won't.


You are on your own at any rate. Its already been established that you are a sinner, and continue to sin, whether or not you follow Jesus.Yes, I am a sinner, but Jesus came to save sinners.

John 3: 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.



Its not foolishness to those who are perishing, its just foolishness period. Such an assertion can be made in reverse "Disbelief in the message of the cross is foolishness to those who believe it." The assertion itself means nothing.

To you, yes. It was to me once also. Without the Holy Spirit, you cannot understand. You should pray to God for him to give you understanding and faith. Then your eyes will be open to the truth. Until then, you are hostile to God and his followers and it will remain foolishness to you.




Except I don't what?Live a sinless life. A good life.


Well, I obviously don't believe that so your point is mute.Then why bother posting here in this thread, or even responding to my posts? Other than to mock Christianity and God? You are not seeking to find the truth no matter where it leads. You think you already have the truth and nothing will convince you to check out whether God exists will it?

Sparko
04-06-2015, 07:07 AM
JimL

I never said we do good works to be saved. I said we are saved because we believe in Christ and obey him. As Adrift said, we do good works BECAUSE we are saved, not in order to be saved. We do it out of love for God and our neighbors.

You seem to have a problem with wanting to be saved from damnation as if wanting to be saved is something greedy.

You sound like someone in the middle of the ocean who is drowning and resents the person next to him grabbing the life preserver tossed to him. You whine "The only reason you grabbed that life preserver was because you didn't want to drown. How selfish of you!" - and all the while there is a life preserver floating right next to you and you won't take it, claiming that you don't need it, because you can swim to shore yourself.

whag
04-06-2015, 07:11 AM
You don't earn your way into heaven. You can be the most altruistic athiest/hindu/muslim/etc in the world and it would not get you in to heaven.

How would a Muslim get to Heaven being thoroughly enculturated and never hearing a convincing presentation of the gospel to convert him?

Sparko
04-06-2015, 07:35 AM
How would a Muslim get to Heaven being thoroughly enculturated and never hearing a convincing presentation of the gospel to convert him?

I don't think there is anywhere that people haven't had a chance to hear the gospel. But if that were to happen, then God will judge them by their lives, just like he will judge you by yours.

It is not up to us or God to make sure everyone is "convinced" - Each person is condemned by his own sins, and will be judged fairly on the basis of their lives.

Romans 2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

JimL
04-06-2015, 04:43 PM
God is omnipresent. There is no place anyone can go and not be in God's presence. The Son of God who is also God with the Father, in being a son of man did not cease from being also omnipresent. ". . . the Son of man which is in heaven." -- John 3:13.
Is that so? Is that why Jesus says in Mark 10:17-22 "why do you call me good? No one is good but God, who is in heaven" Now I know that christians rationalize this contradition to the deity of Jesus, just like they rationalize every contradiction in the Bible, but its perfectly clear to anyone who cares to see in this paragraph, Jesus was on earth and didn't consider himself to be God, God was in heaven, and neither were in both places at once.

Yttrium
04-06-2015, 04:57 PM
Is that so? Is that why Jesus says in Mark 10:17-22 "why do you call me good? No one is good but God, who is in heaven" Now I know that christians rationalize this contradition to the deity of Jesus, just like they rationalize every contradiction in the Bible, but its perfectly clear to anyone who cares to see in this paragraph, Jesus was on earth and didn't consider himself to be God, God was in heaven, and neither were in both places at once.

That's a good point. My primary problem with the idea of Jesus being God is Jesus' first commandment. I can't reconcile the idea of God commanding people to love Him, hence in my view Jesus can't be God.

JimL
04-06-2015, 05:49 PM
Each person will answer for their own sins. You will answer for yours, I will answer for mine. But my sins are forgiven through Christ, and yours are not.
Rant! That doesn't even answer to the question I asked. Adam chose to sin and you choose to sin, so in what sense was Adam any different than you, from whom did Adam inherit his fallen nature?


That is morality. Not "sin" - sin is disobeying God. It is a religious transgression. If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in sin.
Same thing Sparko. Morality is a sense of right and wrong, some attribute the source of right and wrong to God, some do not.


Because I am a sinner. The same reason you need forgiveness.
You only need forgiveness from yourself, you may want it from whomever it was you offended, some may even believe they offended a God and want his forgiveness, but you only need it from yourself. If you have forgiven yourself, then what need have you of Gods forgiveness. I know the answer to that one.





That's the chance you have to take. You either trust the warning or you don't. That is what faith is. If you are wrong, then you are going off the cliff and I won't.
I trust my own senses, more than I would trust anothers.

Yes, I am a sinner, but Jesus came to save sinners.
Save you from what, sinning? Funny how that doesn't seem to be working for you! I think you mean Jesus came to save you despite the fact that you continue to disobey him, just so long as you believe him to be God.

John 3: 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
And as you readily admit, you keep on sinning anyway. Any ways, the above, once again, is about doing right in order to be saved, in order not to be condemned, not about being principled and doing right for its own sake.




To you, yes. It was to me once also. Without the Holy Spirit, you cannot understand. You should pray to God for him to give you understanding and faith. Then your eyes will be open to the truth. Until then, you are hostile to God and his followers and it will remain foolishness to you.
No more hostile to christians than christians are hostile to those who disagree with their beliefs. You should open your eyes and find your way out of the labrynth that you assisted in putting yourself into.



Live a sinless life. A good life.
Of course I don't live a sinnless life, no one always does what they believe to be the right thing. Neither do you, so whats the point?

Then why bother posting here in this thread, or even responding to my posts? Other than to mock Christianity and God? You are not seeking to find the truth no matter where it leads. You think you already have the truth and nothing will convince you to check out whether God exists will it?
Do you think you already have the truth Sparko? Don't be a hypocrite. I can be convinced, its just that christianity, nor any of the other thousands of religions are convincing. Christians didn't inherit a fallen state from Adam, they inherited a mindset of ancient beliefs that they can't let go of for fear of death.

JimL
04-06-2015, 06:03 PM
JimL

I never said we do good works to be saved. I said we are saved because we believe in Christ and obey him. As Adrift said, we do good works BECAUSE we are saved, not in order to be saved. We do it out of love for God and our neighbors.
But you don't obey him, you've admitted that countless times. So you believe that you are saved just because you believe the ancient stories about the existence of a God, and that that same God condemns those who don't believe those stories. Thats what I call an awfully petty and ridiculous God to be believe in.

You seem to have a problem with wanting to be saved from damnation as if wanting to be saved is something greedy.

You sound like someone in the middle of the ocean who is drowning and resents the person next to him grabbing the life preserver tossed to him. You whine "The only reason you grabbed that life preserver was because you didn't want to drown. How selfish of you!" - and all the while there is a life preserver floating right next to you and you won't take it, claiming that you don't need it, because you can swim to shore yourself.
No, I just don't believe that such a petty and ridiculous, and in my opinion evil, God exists.

37818
04-06-2015, 08:18 PM
Is that so? Is that why Jesus says in Mark 10:17-22 "why do you call me good? No one is good but God, who is in heaven" Now I know that christians rationalize this contradition to the deity of Jesus, just like they rationalize every contradiction in the Bible, but its perfectly clear to anyone who cares to see in this paragraph, Jesus was on earth and didn't consider himself to be God, God was in heaven, and neither were in both places at once.Jesus was really a man. All men are sinners (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23-26). Now Jesus answered the young rich man calling Him good teacher with "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except One, God. . . ." The words "who is in heaven" is not in the text. Though Jesus said at another time that He was "the Son of man who is in heaven." (John 3:13). The point being unless Jesus is recognized as God, He should not be regarded as good. But Jesus was both the man and Creator (John 1:3, 10, 14).

37818
04-06-2015, 08:34 PM
What view is damnable? I described two views, which one of them do you think is damnable?I think we agree which one of the two is the damnable view.


Clearly the view that God the Son was in the womb of Mary is not damnable, on the contrary, it's a view that you must hold to in order to be orthodox, because to deny it would mean that you split Christ into two different persons.You are creating a false dilemma. The virgin Mary while carrying the Son of God who is indeed God in the flesh, that does not make her the mother of God.


In short, the Person growing in Mary's womb was fully God at the moment of conception and from eternity past, He did not grow in divinity as you seem to erroneously think that I'm arguing. But it is still appropriate to say that Mary was the mother of God, because she was the mother of Christ, who as a Person was fully God.

Again, not the whole truth. His human mother was the mother of His human nature, not of His divine nature having His origin with the Father. And His eternal Sonship is without any beginning. So she was the mother of our Lord, not the mother of God. And Jesus was both (John 20:28).

Now you want to hold to the interpretation that the virgin Mary is the Mother of God. It not true, but I do not see it as damnable. Since we do agree that Jesus born of Mary was and is both man and God.

Chrawnus
04-06-2015, 08:46 PM
I think we agree which one of the two is the damnable view.
You are creating a false dilemma. The virgin Mary while carrying the Son of God who is indeed God in the flesh, that does not make her the mother of God.

I'm pretty sure it does.



Again, not the whole truth. His human mother was the mother of His human nature, not of His divine nature having His origin with the Father. And His eternal Sonship is without any beginning. So she was the mother of our Lord, not the mother of God. And Jesus was both (John 19:28).

Saying that someone is the mother of someone's nature seems nonsensical to me. Mary was mother to a Person, not to a nature, whatever that is supposed to mean.



Now you want to hold to the interpretation that the virgin Mary is the Mother of God. It not true, but I do not see it as damnable. Since we do agree that Jesus born of Mary was and is both man and God.

If the Person growing inside Mary womb was God, the it follows logically that Mary is the mother of God. :shrug:

You seem to be holding some sort of idiosyncratic definition of the word "mother". If you want to reject the title Mother of God because you think it implies that it would mean she was the origin of Christ's divinity then I'm not sure what to say anymore. Mary being the mother of God follows logically from the fact that the person growing inside her was fully God. The only way Mary couldn't have been the mother of God is if Jesus was not in fact God. :shrug:

37818
04-06-2015, 09:17 PM
I'm pretty sure it does. God has no mother.




Saying that someone is the mother of someone's nature seems nonsensical to me. Mary was mother to a Person, not to a nature, whatever that is supposed to mean.Humans do not preexist their conception. This human did. What preexisted His conception was not from Mary. She was not the mother of what preexisted her.




If the Person growing inside Mary womb was God, the it follows logically that Mary is the mother of God. :shrug:What was growing in Mary's womb was the human. God has no mother.


You seem to be holding some sort of idiosyncratic definition of the word "mother". If you want to reject the title Mother of God because you think it implies that it would mean she was the origin of Christ's divinity then I'm not sure what to say anymore. Mary being the mother of God follows logically from the fact that the person growing inside her was fully God. The only way Mary couldn't have been the mother of God is if Jesus was not in fact God. :shrug:OK. I am of the persuasion that "God with us" who as a man child was born of the virgin Mary. You want to give her the title "Mother of God," be my guest. As I explained, I object to the use of that title to be used of the mother of our Lord.

whag
04-06-2015, 09:35 PM
God has no mother.



Humans do not preexist their conception. This human did. What preexisted His conception was not from Mary. She was not the mother of what preexisted her.


What was growing in Mary's womb was the human. God has no mother.

OK. I am of the persuasion that "God with us" who as a man child was born of the virgin Mary. You want to give her the title "Mother of God," be my guest. As I explained, I object to the use of that title to be used of the mother of our Lord.

This bickering about whether God has a mother is hilarious.

Tassman
04-07-2015, 03:32 AM
This bickering about whether God has a mother is hilarious.

Yes, it takes me back to the era 2,000 years ago (and beyond) when supernatural entities and virgin births were commonplace. So obviously Jesus had to have a virgin birth just so as to keep up with the deity set. But if there’s going to be bickering about it these two should at least get the mythology right.

Chrawnus is on the right track. The BVM is referred to in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions as Theotokos, i.e. God bearer, and clearly this is a direct consequence of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, whereby all three persons of the Trinity are fully and eternally God AND the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union whereby Jesus is fully God and fully man at one and the same time.

So, unless 37818 is going in for the Adoptionist heresy, whereby Jesus didn’t become God until the Holy Spirit descended upon him at Baptism, then Jesus was fully God from the moment the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Hence she is “mother of God”.

JimL
04-07-2015, 04:01 AM
Jesus was really a man.
Yes, I agree.


All men are sinners (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23-26).
Agreed: Jesus was a man=Jesus was a sinner.


Now Jesus answered the young rich man calling Him good teacher with "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except One, God. . . ." The words "who is in heaven" is not in the text. Though Jesus said at another time that He was "the Son of man who is in heaven." (John 3:13). The point being unless Jesus is recognized as God, He should not be regarded as good. But Jesus was both the man and Creator (John 1:3, 10, 14).
And have any of you christians done what Jesus told the young man to do if he wanted eternal life in heaven? Have you sold all you have and given to the poor?

Sparko
04-07-2015, 06:16 AM
Is that so? Is that why Jesus says in Mark 10:17-22 "why do you call me good? No one is good but God, who is in heaven" Now I know that christians rationalize this contradition to the deity of Jesus, just like they rationalize every contradiction in the Bible, but its perfectly clear to anyone who cares to see in this paragraph, Jesus was on earth and didn't consider himself to be God, God was in heaven, and neither were in both places at once.

Jesus was trying to get the guy to think about who he was talking to. He wasn't saying he was not God.

Sparko
04-07-2015, 06:18 AM
That's a good point. My primary problem with the idea of Jesus being God is Jesus' first commandment. I can't reconcile the idea of God commanding people to love Him, hence in my view Jesus can't be God.

Um... God gave that commandment to Moses, thousands of years before Jesus, the man, was born. So that argument pretty much fails, eh?

The Son had two natures: God and Man.

Chrawnus
04-07-2015, 06:20 AM
. . . virgin births were commonplace.

:ahem:

37818
04-07-2015, 06:41 AM
Agreed: Jesus was a man=Jesus was a sinner.If Jesus was not also God (John 1:10).



And have any of you christians done what Jesus told the young man to do if he wanted eternal life in heaven? Have you sold all you have and given to the poor?Ah, do that for a reward in heaven, it is not how to get to heaven. It should be noted, Jesus omitted mentioning the commandent "You shall not covet," which BTW was this young rich man's problem.

Sparko
04-07-2015, 06:46 AM
Rant! That doesn't even answer to the question I asked. Adam chose to sin and you choose to sin, so in what sense was Adam any different than you, from whom did Adam inherit his fallen nature?

God made Adam able to sin or not sin. He chose to sin. From that point on, all mankind has a fallen nature, and we all sin. We can't help it. But that doesn't excuse us because each sin is a choice we make. Just like a drug addict makes a choice to take a drug. So we need help. Jesus is that help.



Same thing Sparko. Morality is a sense of right and wrong, some attribute the source of right and wrong to God, some do not.Not exactly Jim. Your idea of what is moral is not based on God's wishes, but your own. Since God is not involved, you don't believe in sin.



You only need forgiveness from yourself, you may want it from whomever it was you offended, some may even believe they offended a God and want his forgiveness, but you only need it from yourself. If you have forgiven yourself, then what need have you of Gods forgiveness. I know the answer to that one.




If you wrong someone in your life, do you say you don't need their forgiveness? That all you need is to forgive yourself?

Let me put a hypothetical to you. If God is real and you are guilty of rebelling against him and sinning, then you do need his forgiveness, don't you? You have wronged him.





I trust my own senses, more than I would trust anothers. Really? Then I suppose you don't need traffic lights to tell you so slow down or stop? Or anyone to warn you if you are about to do something injurous. You can't always see a cliff before you run over it. So you can either listen to others, and trust them, or ignore them.




Save you from what, sinning? Funny how that doesn't seem to be working for you! I think you mean Jesus came to save you despite the fact that you continue to disobey him, just so long as you believe him to be God.

Save me from eternal damnation which we all deserve. And as we keep telling you it is not just "belief" - it is "trust" - we trust Jesus and believe what he tells us, and follow him out of love. His salvation is a gift of mercy, for everyone who accepts it.

You can either accept that mercy or reject it. It is available to everyone the same.

When you stand before God at the Judgement and he says sorry Jim, but you have sineed and rejected me, no you are rejected, what will you say?

"But God, you let Sparko in and he sinned too!"?

God would just tell you that you had the same opportunity as I did, and you decided to not believe and accept his free gift. So now you are on your own.




And as you readily admit, you keep on sinning anyway. Any ways, the above, once again, is about doing right in order to be saved, in order not to be condemned, not about being principled and doing right for its own sake.

No it isn't. It is about believing and trusting in him. He is saying that many people, who do not want to admit or expose their sins will turn a blind eye to the offer and remain in the dark.

That is what you are doing.





No more hostile to christians than christians are hostile to those who disagree with their beliefs. You should open your eyes and find your way out of the labrynth that you assisted in putting yourself into.

Who is being hostile? I am telling you the truth in the hope that it might get through to you. I used to be where you are now. I was 40 years old before I became a Christian. I thought as you did before, but then I had some people take the time to try to explain the gospel to me and I saw God working in their and my own life, and I believed. It is not too late for you, JimL -- just open your mind. Pray to God to help you understand and believe.






Of course I don't live a sinnless life, no one always does what they believe to be the right thing. Neither do you, so whats the point?
Because living a sinless life is your only hope other than to accept Jesus. Unfortunately, you have already sinned so that ship has sailed. Your only hope is Jesus.



Do you think you already have the truth Sparko? Don't be a hypocrite. I can be convinced, its just that christianity, nor any of the other thousands of religions are convincing. Christians didn't inherit a fallen state from Adam, they inherited a mindset of ancient beliefs that they can't let go of for fear of death.

You don't sound like you can be convinced. But as I said above, I lived 40 years before I was convinced. So there is still hope for you. The ball is in your court. You know the gospel, you know the consequences of relying on yourself. If you one day find yourself standing (or kneeling) before God, you will have no excuse for rejecting the gospel. You can try to argue that you were not given enough proof or evidence, but billions of others have found the gospel to be sufficient to believe, so that won't work.

Yttrium
04-07-2015, 06:52 AM
Um... God gave that commandment to Moses, thousands of years before Jesus, the man, was born. So that argument pretty much fails, eh?


It's not an argument. It's just my personal viewpoint. And I must have missed that part about God giving Jesus' first commandment to Moses. Could you help me out there?

Sparko
04-07-2015, 06:58 AM
It's not an argument. It's just my personal viewpoint. And I must have missed that part about God giving the Jesus' first commandment to Moses. Could you help me out there?

Jesus summarized the Law and the commandments by saying "love God and your neighbors"

But God himself told Moses the Law to write down and part of that law was:

Deuteronomy 6:5
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

So your argument that God would not tell anyone to love him, is kind of out the window.

Yttrium
04-07-2015, 07:08 AM
Jesus summarized the Law and the commandments by saying "love God and your neighbors"

But God himself told Moses the Law to write down and part of that law was:

Deuteronomy 6:5
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

So your argument that God would not tell anyone to love him, is kind of out the window.

Well, like I said. It's not an argument. I just said that I can't reconcile it myself. Christians can reconcile it, that's great, I won't argue against it. I'm afraid Deuteronomy 6:5 doesn't do it for me either. I can certainly see why you would consider it to be a commandment from God, but I see it as coming from Moses (similar to his statement to fear God) as he's talking about the commandments from God. It's a matter of interpreting the context, so I'm not going to contest that.

Paprika
04-07-2015, 07:10 AM
It's not an argument. It's just my personal viewpoint. And I must have missed that part about God giving Jesus' first commandment to Moses. Could you help me out there?
If there is any one central piece of Scripture for the Jews, it is the Shema:

"Hear, O Israel: the LORD is our God, the LORD alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."

Sparko
04-07-2015, 07:12 AM
Well, like I said. It's not an argument. I just said that I can't reconcile it myself. Christians can reconcile it, that's great, I won't argue against it. I'm afraid Deuteronomy 6:5 doesn't do it for me either. I can certainly see why you would consider it to be a commandment from God, but I see it as coming from Moses (similar to his statement to fear God) as he's talking about the commandments from God. It's a matter of interpreting the context, so I'm not going to contest that.
He specifically says it is from God:

Deut 6:1 6 These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess,

Yttrium
04-07-2015, 07:18 AM
He specifically says it is from God:

Deut 6:1 6 These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess,

I'm sorry, I still see it as referring to the commandments listed in Deuteronomy 5. It seems to me that he's still referring to those commandments while he says other things, such as fear God and love God. But again, I can fully understand why you would see the line to love God as part of the commandments.

Sparko
04-07-2015, 07:34 AM
I'm sorry, I still see it as referring to the commandments listed in Deuteronomy 5. It seems to me that he's still referring to those commandments while he says other things, such as fear God and love God. But again, I can fully understand why you would see the line to love God as part of the commandments.

The entire law was commandments. The decalogue was just the first 10. Do you think Moses just made them up? He specifically said he was giving them the commands, decrees and laws that God directed him to give. That means all of them, not just the first 10.

Love is not merely an emotion. God isn't saying "to have feelings of love about me" - love is action. He is saying that if you love him you will keep his commandments. You will show your love. God is all good and loving towards us, don't you think he deserves our love in return? He isn't asking us to love and obey him out of selfishness, but because if we live the way he wants us to, then we are living the lives he created us to live and we will be our happiest. It is for our own good, not God's.

Yttrium
04-07-2015, 08:20 AM
The entire law was commandments. The decalogue was just the first 10. Do you think Moses just made them up? He specifically said he was giving them the commands, decrees and laws that God directed him to give. That means all of them, not just the first 10.

Love is not merely an emotion. God isn't saying "to have feelings of love about me" - love is action. He is saying that if you love him you will keep his commandments. You will show your love. God is all good and loving towards us, don't you think he deserves our love in return? He isn't asking us to love and obey him out of selfishness, but because if we live the way he wants us to, then we are living the lives he created us to live and we will be our happiest. It is for our own good, not God's.

I did say that I can fully understand why you would consider the line to love God as part of the commandments.

JimL
04-07-2015, 06:37 PM
If Jesus was not also God (John 1:10).
None of the makes any sense whether you believe it or not.

Ah, do that for a reward in heaven, it is not how to get to heaven. It should be noted, Jesus omitted mentioning the commandent "You shall not covet," which BTW was this young rich man's problem.
What are you talking about, isn't that what Jesus supposedly said to the young wealthy man, that selling all he had and giving it to the poor was the one thing he needed to do. Apparently you only believe those parts of the bible that suit you.

JimL
04-07-2015, 08:30 PM
God made Adam able to sin or not sin. He chose to sin. From that point on, all mankind has a fallen nature, and we all sin. We can't help it. But that doesn't excuse us because each sin is a choice we make. Just like a drug addict makes a choice to take a drug. So we need help. Jesus is that help.
Then we didn't inherit our natures from Adam, we inherited it from God just like Adam did. You are able to sin or not to sin just like Adam was, so whats all this nonsense about a fall and inheritence?

Not exactly Jim. Your idea of what is moral is not based on God's wishes, but your own. Since God is not involved, you don't believe in sin.
Well of course that is your opinion and your definition of sin, and my definition differs from yours.






If you wrong someone in your life, do you say you don't need their forgiveness? That all you need is to forgive yourself?
No I don't need anothers forgiveness. It might be nice, but not needed so long as i forgive myself.

Let me put a hypothetical to you. If God is real and you are guilty of rebelling against him and sinning, then you do need his forgiveness, don't you? You have wronged him.
No I wouldn't. If I am sorry for what I've done then why would I "need" anyones, including Gods, forgiveness?




Really? Then I suppose you don't need traffic lights to tell you so slow down or stop? Or anyone to warn you if you are about to do something injurous. You can't always see a cliff before you run over it. So you can either listen to others, and trust them, or ignore them.
If I see the light is red, and you tell me its green, then I will trust my own eyes thank you.





Save me from eternal damnation which we all deserve.
Is that what you think of your loved ones, that they deserve eternal damnation? Thats a God that I would define as a psychopath!

And as we keep telling you it is not just "belief" - it is "trust" - we trust Jesus and believe what he tells us, and follow him out of love. His salvation is a gift of mercy, for everyone who accepts it.
And if there were no gift of salvation offered for your obedience would you still give a damn about Jesus? I don't think so, which is why we created Gods with their punishments and rewards in the first place.

You can either accept that mercy or reject it. It is available to everyone the same.
If being merciful is good then not being merciful is evil, which means God eternally damning human beings is an evil doing God. Would you do the same if you were God and the creation that you supposedly love didn't believe you existed, or for any reason for that matter.

When you stand before God at the Judgement and he says sorry Jim, but you have sineed and rejected me, no you are rejected, what will you say?
I'd say damn God, your an awful pinhead. I didn't reject you, I never even knew you. What kind of father could be such a psychopathic murderer of his own children?

"But God, you let Sparko in and he sinned too!"?

God would just tell you that you had the same opportunity as I did, and you decided to not believe and accept his free gift. So now you are on your own.
I'd say that is ridiculous, what kind of needy jerk punishes or rewards people for their beliefs.




No it isn't. It is about believing and trusting in him. He is saying that many people, who do not want to admit or expose their sins will turn a blind eye to the offer and remain in the dark.

That is what you are doing.
No, it has nothing to do with admitting and exposing your sins, since if God existed he already knows your sins, its about believing in God and in the reward you think he offers for that belief. That is what you are doing!






Who is being hostile? I am telling you the truth in the hope that it might get through to you.
Well, you are telling me what you believe to be true, or at least what you hope to be true. But I'm only doing the same, its just that we disagree as to what is truth.


I used to be where you are now. I was 40 years old before I became a Christian. I thought as you did before, but then I had some people take the time to try to explain the gospel to me and I saw God working in their and my own life, and I believed. It is not too late for you, JimL -- just open your mind. Pray to God to help you understand and believe.
Been there done that Sparko, when I was young and naive and unable to thoughtfully question what I was told. I was humble and inherited the earth, but as I got older and wiser the scales fell from my eyes and I realized what religion really is and freed myself from it. Its not to late for you either Sparko, just open your mind and rid yourself of the guilt and fear, that was impressed upon you.




Because living a sinless life is your only hope other than to accept Jesus. Unfortunately, you have already sinned so that ship has sailed. Your only hope is Jesus.
Hope for what? Oh the reward. Sparko, lets get this straight, even if I were to believe in a God, I would not believe in a God like the Christian God whom I find to be dispicable. I could never love or worship a being who would do what in my own judgment is immoral and that is how I see the God that you believe in. So, that ain't gonna happen. If there is a God, then in order for me to worship him, he'd better be good in my eyes else I couldn't give a damn about him.



You don't sound like you can be convinced. But as I said above, I lived 40 years before I was convinced. So there is still hope for you. The ball is in your court. You know the gospel, you know the consequences of relying on yourself. If you one day find yourself standing (or kneeling) before God, you will have no excuse for rejecting the gospel. You can try to argue that you were not given enough proof or evidence, but billions of others have found the gospel to be sufficient to believe, so that won't work.
No, not sure what you mean, what are the consequences of relying on yourself? And I have no fear that I will one day be kneeling before a God, such an idea is silly. And btw, most of those millions of believers that you speak of don't even know the gospel, which is one of the main reasons they believe it.

Spartacus
04-07-2015, 09:00 PM
Has anyone told 37818 that he's arguing for a Nestorian Christology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism)?

Chrawnus
04-07-2015, 09:03 PM
Has anyone told 37818 that he's arguing for a Nestorian Christology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism)?


What view is damnable? I described two views, which one of them do you think is damnable?

Clearly the view that God the Son was in the womb of Mary is not damnable, on the contrary, it's a view that you must hold to in order to be orthodox, because to deny it would mean that you split Christ into two different persons.

In short, the Person growing in Mary's womb was fully God at the moment of conception and from eternity past, He did not grow in divinity as you seem to erroneously think that I'm arguing. But it is still appropriate to say that Mary was the mother of God, because she was the mother of Christ, who as a Person was fully God.

Does this count?

Spartacus
04-07-2015, 09:20 PM
Does this count?

It's one thing to call someone out for being a heretic; it's another to point out just how unoriginal they are and how long ago the heresy was repudiated. :rasberry:

37818
04-07-2015, 10:52 PM
Has anyone told 37818 that he's arguing for a Nestorian Christology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism)?

Are you all really that dense? I believe the Son of God is only one Person. In the incarnation when He became human, He the Son of God remained God and took on a human nature, still being one Person. He was fully human, and inherited the knowledge of good and evil which caused the sinful nature in humans was handed down from Adam through His virgin mother Mary to Him being fully human. Because this knowledge of good and evil was always part of His divine nature (Genesis 3:22) He being fully human and so also remaining fully God would not sin (Mark 10:18; Hebrews 4:15.)

37818
04-07-2015, 10:59 PM
.
None of the makes any sense whether you believe it or not. By you not understanding it to be true does not make it not true. And then why should you believe what does not make sense to you? Jesus was both the man and God in the flesh. (see John 14:6-9). That is the claim.


What are you talking about, isn't that what Jesus supposedly said to the young wealthy man, that selling all he had and giving it to the poor was the one thing he needed to do. Apparently you only believe those parts of the bible that suit you.The record we call the gospel accounts is really all the real history we have upon which genuine Christianity is to be based. Some Christians would disagree. But then most all groups orthodox and heretical use the same 66 books besides other claims. You can understand it or choose not to.

37818
04-07-2015, 11:27 PM
This bickering about whether God has a mother is hilarious.The common belief is the Son of God was incarnate through a human birth of His human mother the virgin Mary. Being always God now became human. It is a widely accepted statement of faith that the "Virgin Mary is the Mother of God." I do not ascribe to that particular statement of faith. What is agreed upon is the one born to the Virgin Mary was both the man and God.


Yes, it takes me back to the era 2,000 years ago (and beyond) when supernatural entities and virgin births were commonplace. Name one. And give the historical basis.
So obviously Jesus had to have a virgin birth just so as to keep up with the deity set. But if there’s going to be bickering about it these two should at least get the mythology right.Hmm. . . "The chaste young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14. ". . . And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. . . ." -- Genesis 3:15.




Chrawnus is on the right track. The BVM is referred to in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions as Theotokos, i.e. God bearer, and clearly this is a direct consequence of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, whereby all three persons of the Trinity are fully and eternally God AND the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union whereby Jesus is fully God and fully man at one and the same time. Noted.



So, unless 37818 is going in for the Adoptionist heresy, whereby Jesus didn’t become God until the Holy Spirit descended upon him at Baptism, then Jesus was fully God from the moment the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Hence she is “mother of God”.Jesus was the Creator before His birth (John 1;3, 10, 14). And was Christ the Lord at His birth, meaning He was the Savior (Luke 2:11; Isaiah 43:11). Now the term "adoption" as used by the Apostle Paul has the meaning of being placed as a son. And even the Apostle John understood this, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." -- 1 John 3:2. So the Apostle Paul wrote to the Roman church, ". . . even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body." -- Romans 8:23. And again in another place he wrote, ". . . For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, . . . " -- Philippians 3:20-21.

Tassman
04-08-2015, 03:36 AM
Name one. And give the historical basis. Hmm. . . "The chaste young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14. ". . . And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. . . ." -- Genesis 3:15.

There have been numerous accounts of miraculous births of various sorts and there’s no credible historical basis for any of them. E.g. in Egypt, virgin mother Isis begot Horus; in Greece Adonis was born of a virgin and was resurrected after being killed by a wild boar – the Phoenicians considered him to be a dying-and-rising god; Perseus and Hercules both had virgin births after being fathered by yet other gods; Mithra was a Persian god who was also virgin born - and so on. There are scores of such myths and all have the miraculous in common despite differing details. It was the sort of thing gods did back then.

37818
04-08-2015, 06:04 AM
There have been numerous accounts of miraculous births of various sorts and there’s no credible historical basis for any of them. E.g. in Egypt, virgin mother Isis begot Horus; in Greece Adonis was born of a virgin and was resurrected after being killed by a wild boar – the Phoenicians considered him to be a dying-and-rising god; Perseus and Hercules both had virgin births after being fathered by yet other gods; Mithra was a Persian god who was also virgin born - and so on. There are scores of such myths and all have the miraculous in common despite differing details. It was the sort of thing gods did back then.Ah . . . You're presenting more claims. The common account the family relationship describes Horus as the son of Isis and Osiris. Do you have any archeological references?

Christianbookworm
04-08-2015, 06:20 AM
Ah . . . You're presenting more claims. The common account the family relationship describes Horus as the son of Isis and Osiris. Do you have any archeological references?

And she had to put Osiris back together like a puzzle(Egyptian gods were like lego apparently), but one of the pieces was missing...

Sparko
04-08-2015, 07:18 AM
Then we didn't inherit our natures from Adam, we inherited it from God just like Adam did. You are able to sin or not to sin just like Adam was, so whats all this nonsense about a fall and inheritence? Well since not one person has ever not sinned (except Jesus) I don't think anyone is able to "not sin" in totality. You might be able to not sin in a particular instance, since you have free will, but you will (and have) sinned at some time.


Well of course that is your opinion and your definition of sin, and my definition differs from yours.No. I am using the actual definition of sin, to "miss the mark" meaning you are not meeting God's expectations. You are just confusing "morals" with "sin".







No I don't need anothers forgiveness. It might be nice, but not needed so long as i forgive myself.Unless you are some sort of sociopath, that is not true. For example: If you do something to cause your wife harm and she is going to leave you, you can forgive yourself all you want, but that will do nothing to restore your relationship with her. You need her forgiveness.


No I wouldn't. If I am sorry for what I've done then why would I "need" anyones, including Gods, forgiveness?Because your actions are not isolated. They effect others, including God. :duh:







If I see the light is red, and you tell me its green, then I will trust my own eyes thank you.Beside the point. you are trusting the traffic light to tell you what to do. The same as if someone is telling you there is a cliff ahead. You can either trust him, or not.






Is that what you think of your loved ones, that they deserve eternal damnation? Thats a God that I would define as a psychopath!We all deserve damnation because we have all sinned against God. Myself included. Why should God embrace those who reject him and rebel against him? What makes you think you can ignore God and reject him and tell him your whole life that you don't need him or want anything to do with him, and then expect him to let you live with him for eternity? Luckily God is merciful and gives everyone a way to escape that separation and show that we want to reconcile with him and receive forgiveness.


And if there were no gift of salvation offered for your obedience would you still give a damn about Jesus? I don't think so, which is why we created Gods with their punishments and rewards in the first place.

If being merciful is good then not being merciful is evil, which means God eternally damning human beings is an evil doing God. Would you do the same if you were God and the creation that you supposedly love didn't believe you existed, or for any reason for that matter.

No. "not being merciful" would mean being just. Getting what we deserve. Yet instead of getting what we deserve, God offers us mercy.

If a governor offers amnesty to a criminal in jail, that is mercy. If he doesn't then the criminal is getting what he deserves and the governor is being just.



I'd say damn God, your an awful pinhead. I didn't reject you, I never even knew you. What kind of father could be such a psychopathic murderer of his own children?ROFL. and then you would be mad because God sent you to hell? After acting like that? If you don't want to be with God because you think he is a psychopath, well then, God is going to oblige you. You will get what you want.


I'd say that is ridiculous, what kind of needy jerk punishes or rewards people for their beliefs. You are not punished for not believing. you are punished because you reject God and are a sinner.






No, it has nothing to do with admitting and exposing your sins, since if God existed he already knows your sins, its about believing in God and in the reward you think he offers for that belief. That is what you are doing!I am accepting his mercy. You are rejecting it. That is your choice. Don't whine about it.






Well, you are telling me what you believe to be true, or at least what you hope to be true. But I'm only doing the same, its just that we disagree as to what is truth.
Thank you Captain Obvious.



Been there done that Sparko, when I was young and naive and unable to thoughtfully question what I was told. I was humble and inherited the earth, but as I got older and wiser the scales fell from my eyes and I realized what religion really is and freed myself from it. Its not to late for you either Sparko, just open your mind and rid yourself of the guilt and fear, that was impressed upon you.I don't feel any guilt or fear. I feel freer than I ever did as an atheist or agnostic.





Hope for what? Oh the reward. Sparko, lets get this straight, even if I were to believe in a God, I would not believe in a God like the Christian God whom I find to be dispicable. I could never love or worship a being who would do what in my own judgment is immoral and that is how I see the God that you believe in. So, that ain't gonna happen. If there is a God, then in order for me to worship him, he'd better be good in my eyes else I couldn't give a damn about him.
And as I said above, if that is the way you feel, then God will oblige you and you won't have to put up with him for eternity. Just don't whine about it when the time comes.



No, not sure what you mean, what are the consequences of relying on yourself? And I have no fear that I will one day be kneeling before a God, such an idea is silly. And btw, most of those millions of believers that you speak of don't even know the gospel, which is one of the main reasons they believe it.The consequences of relying on yourself when you are before God at the judgment is that your own actions and words will condemn you. And of course the "millions of believers" know the gospel. That is why they are believers. :duh:

Chrawnus
04-08-2015, 07:34 AM
There have been numerous accounts of miraculous births of various sorts and there’s no credible historical basis for any of them. E.g. in Egypt, virgin mother Isis begot Horus; in Greece Adonis was born of a virgin and was resurrected after being killed by a wild boar – the Phoenicians considered him to be a dying-and-rising god; Perseus and Hercules both had virgin births after being fathered by yet other gods; Mithra was a Persian god who was also virgin born - and so on. There are scores of such myths and all have the miraculous in common despite differing details. It was the sort of thing gods did back then.

:lmbo:

Horus wasn't born of a virgin. According to the mythology Isis after recombining the parts of Osiris had sexual intercourse with the dead corpse and became pregnant with Horus.

There is no indication Adonis was ever thought to be born of a virgin. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/adonis.html

Danaë was impregnated by Zeus (in the form of a golden shower) while locked in a bronze chamber and gave birth to Perseus.


And of course, the most compelling parallel of all, Mithra, born of the virgin rock. :rofl:


You're full of crock Tassman.

rogue06
04-08-2015, 07:50 AM
:lmbo:

Horus wasn't born of a virgin. According to the mythology Isis after recombining the parts of Osiris had sexual intercourse with the dead corpse and became pregnant with Horus.

There is no indication Adonis was ever thought to be born of a virgin. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/adonis.html

Perseus was impregnated by Zeus (in the form of a golden shower) while locked in a bronze chamber.


And of course, the most compelling parallel of all, Mithra, born of the virgin rock. :rofl:


You're full of crock Tassman.
It is truly amazing how far off these supposed parallels are when you actually examine them.

And btw it was Danaë not Perseus who was impregnated :smile:

Chrawnus
04-08-2015, 07:55 AM
And btw it was Danaë not Perseus who was impregnated :smile:

:doh:

Fixed.

seer
04-08-2015, 08:25 AM
True Christians don't sin. Or so I've been told by some Christians. My response to that usually runs along the lines of: If true Christians don't sin, then I've never met a true Christian. However, this idea has been bugging me lately, and I have a number of questions about it. I note that it's not a universal Christian doctrine. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church teaches that all humans are sinners, even the Christians. That's why they have confessionals, after all. The members of the flock go to the confessionals to admit their latest sins, repent, and seek forgiveness. I've met a lot of Protestants who similarly believe that Christians sin. So the position that Christians don't sin would seem to be a minority viewpoint.

My questions:

Are there specific denominations that teach the idea that true Christians don't sin?

Is it a popular view among Christians around here?

Which would be true, under this view? Or do both flavors exist out there? Or is it some other explanation that I've overlooked?
- True Christians have already been forgiven, so nothing they do is considered to be sinful, even if it would be considered sinful for others.
- True Christians simply don't do things that would be considered sinful for others.

Do Christians who believe that Christians sin see a Biblical contradiction in the idea that Christians don't sin? And vice versa? I'd like to get a better understanding of the arguments involved. The idea that true Christians don't sin seems to me to be nonsensical on the face of it, so any attempt to make it make sense would be appreciated.

"I've never been a sinner, I never sinned, I got a friend in Jesus." From the song Spirit in the Sky. Meaning that in Christ all our sins are forgiven as if we never sinned, washed clean by the Blood of Christ.

Turn it up and Enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swIcX57vYDI

Yttrium
04-08-2015, 08:40 AM
"I've never been a sinner, I never sinned, I got a friend in Jesus." From the song Spirit in the Sky. Meaning that in Christ all our sins are forgiven as if we never sinned, washed clean by the Blood of Christ.

*hums song thoughtfully*

So, I take it that this means you might do things that otherwise could be considered sinful (possibly through accident or ignorance), but you're forgiven from the sin, so it doesn't count as sin.

KingsGambit
04-08-2015, 08:42 AM
Um, I've always considered Spirit in the Sky to be a rather blasphemous song from a Christian perspective and those lyrics not to represent a Christian point of view... (Norman Greenbaum is not and has never been a Christian.)

Yttrium
04-08-2015, 08:44 AM
Um, I've always considered Spirit in the Sky to be a rather blasphemous song from a Christian perspective and those lyrics not to represent a Christian point of view... (Norman Greenbaum is not and has never been a Christian.)

It has a catchy tune, though.

seer
04-08-2015, 08:51 AM
Um, I've always considered Spirit in the Sky to be a rather blasphemous song from a Christian perspective and those lyrics not to represent a Christian point of view... (Norman Greenbaum is not and has never been a Christian.)

I'm not sure why.

seer
04-08-2015, 08:52 AM
*hums song thoughtfully*

So, I take it that this means you might do things that otherwise could be considered sinful (possibly through accident or ignorance), but you're forgiven from the sin, so it doesn't count as sin.

Well kind of, we still sin but the sin is not held against us.

Yttrium
04-08-2015, 09:05 AM
Well kind of, we still sin but the sin is not held against us.

But I assume you're not sinning intentionally and using forgiveness as a get-out-of-jail-free card, because that would be, well, villainous.

KingsGambit
04-08-2015, 09:07 AM
I'm not sure why.

The lines "I've never been a sinner, I never sinned" are a blanket denial of 1 John 1:8-9.

Sparko
04-08-2015, 09:12 AM
But I assume you're not sinning intentionally and using forgiveness as a get-out-of-jail-free card, because that would be, well, villainous.

I urge you to read the book of Romans. It is not that long and it explains a lot of things you seem to have questions about.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=NIV

Christianbookworm
04-08-2015, 09:14 AM
But I assume you're not sinning intentionally and using forgiveness as a get-out-of-jail-free card, because that would be, well, villainous.

Even if it's poking a poodle? If someone did that(keep on sinning seriously in defiance because they'll be forgiven anyway!), they wouldn't get any rewards.

Chrawnus
04-08-2015, 09:20 AM
But I assume you're not sinning intentionally and using forgiveness as a get-out-of-jail-free card, because that would be, well, villainous.
I urge you to read the book of Romans. It is not that long and it explains a lot of things you seem to have questions about.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=NIV

:yes:

Romans 6 is especially pertinent to the question of whether a Christian can go on sinning intentionally.

Yttrium
04-08-2015, 09:32 AM
:yes:

Romans 6 is especially pertinent to the question of whether a Christian can go on sinning intentionally.

Yes, that part of Romans is pretty clear on the subject.

Sparko
04-08-2015, 09:43 AM
Yes, that part of Romans is pretty clear on the subject.read on to Romans 7, especially the second half of it.

seer
04-08-2015, 11:53 AM
The lines "I've never been a sinner, I never sinned" are a blanket denial of 1 John 1:8-9.

No, I think he means that we are seen by God, via the blood of Christ, as innocent. And I would disagree with your understanding of the above passage - for other reasons.


Romans 4:

4.Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against them.

JimL
04-08-2015, 08:39 PM
Well since not one person has ever not sinned (except Jesus) I don't think anyone is able to "not sin" in totality. You might be able to not sin in a particular instance, since you have free will, but you will (and have) sinned at some time.
Well if you admit this, then you admit also that you didn't inherit your fallen nature from Adam, you inherited it, just like Adam did, from God. Adam didn't fall, he was human, no different from you.


No. I am using the actual definition of sin, to "miss the mark" meaning you are not meeting God's expectations. You are just confusing "morals" with "sin".
No you are using your own definition, the religious definition. Thats what you believe sin is, disobedience to a God, a God who commanded his people to commit the very acts he enacted as sins.






Unless you are some sort of sociopath, that is not true. For example: If you do something to cause your wife harm and she is going to leave you, you can forgive yourself all you want, but that will do nothing to restore your relationship with her. You need her forgiveness.
No I do not "need" her forgiveness, I only "need" to forgive myself. If you recognize that what you've done is wrong and are truly sorry for it, then it doesn't matter if the one you've offended forgives you or not. Thats their choice.

Because your actions are not isolated. They effect others, including God. :duh:
And it is each persons choice as to whether they want to forgive you or not, its not a "need", the only "need" is that you forgive yourself.






Beside the point. you are trusting the traffic light to tell you what to do. The same as if someone is telling you there is a cliff ahead. You can either trust him, or not.
No, it not besides the point, i am trusting my own senses rather than trusting the someone who is telling me differently. If you see the light is red, and someone warns you that it is okay, keep going, the light is green, are you going to trust your own eyes and stop or are you going to run the light based on what someone else tells you?





We all deserve damnation because we have all sinned against God.
So when you look at your loved ones, you see evil people that deserve to burn in hell.

Myself included.
Well, maybe in your case. :lol: Just kidding, In my opinion such a God can not be defined as love because true love is unconditional not vengeful.

Why should God embrace those who reject him and rebel against him?
Well for one thing, because they don't reject him, they don't know him or believe he exists, and more so than that, because he loves them.

What makes you think you can ignore God and reject him and tell him your whole life that you don't need him or want anything to do with him, and then expect him to let you live with him for eternity? Luckily God is merciful and gives everyone a way to escape that separation and show that we want to reconcile with him and receive forgiveness.
Sparko, non-believers are not rejecting your God, they can not reject what they don't believe to exist. You, in my opinion, are playing this imaginary game in your head with an imaginary God who you believe to be talking to you and forgiving you, but in reality you are talking to and forgiving yourself.



No. "not being merciful" would mean being just. Getting what we deserve. Yet instead of getting what we deserve, God offers us mercy.
Well, which is God, merciful or Just? If he is merciful then he is not being just, and if he is just then he is not merciful. So which is it?

If a governor offers amnesty to a criminal in jail, that is mercy. If he doesn't then the criminal is getting what he deserves and the governor is being just.
Right, so the govenor can either be merciful or he can be just, but he can't be both.


ROFL. and then you would be mad because God sent you to hell? After acting like that? If you don't want to be with God because you think he is a psychopath, well then, God is going to oblige you. You will get what you want.
Well that assumes that such a psychopath of a God exists, which I have no doubt that he does not. Why would anyone want to spend eternity with a jealous, vengeful, tyrannous, psychopath of a God anyway? I'll bet if your own father were like that you'd get the hell away from him as soon as you could.

You are not punished for not believing. you are punished because you reject God and are a sinner.
Again, that is just dumb. You can't reject or disobey that which you don't even believe to exists.





I am accepting his mercy. You are rejecting it. That is your choice. Don't whine about it.
Dumb, dumb, dumb, you are accepting your own mercy, your own forgiveness, and attributing it to your imaginary God. But that is your choice.





Thank you Captain Obvious.
Welcome.


I don't feel any guilt or fear. I feel freer than I ever did as an atheist or agnostic.
Probably because you were never a real atheist.




And as I said above, if that is the way you feel, then God will oblige you and you won't have to put up with him for eternity. Just don't whine about it when the time comes.
Again, not my belief, yours. And unlike you I have no fear of God, because if he exists and is evil, I want nothing to do with him, and if he exists and is good, then i have nothing to fear from him.


The consequences of relying on yourself when you are before God at the judgment is that your own actions and words will condemn you. And of course the "millions of believers" know the gospel. That is why they are believers. :duh:
Whatever you want to believe. But personally, and I don't mean to be mean, but I think you people are silly to believe such nonsense. And as for believers, believe me I know and have known many christians in my life, and most all of them have very little knowledge of what it is (the Bible) that they profess to believe in.

37818
04-08-2015, 08:54 PM
No, I think he means that we are seen by God, via the blood of Christ, as innocent. And I would disagree with your understanding of the above passage - for other reasons.

Well Norman Greenbaum wanted to write a religious rock song. And because he was Jewish and did not want to use a Jewish reference for God, he opted to use "Jesus" and also thought it would be more marketable. Greenbaum told a magazine regarding his song, "It appeals to one's inner self and the need for redemption, plus, heck, who wants to go to hell?" (http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=2999) In not being a Christian he would not have understood correctly*. Again, he was Jewish.

*". . . if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." -- 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4.

JimL
04-08-2015, 09:22 PM
By you not understanding it to be true does not make it not true. And then why should you believe what does not make sense to you? Jesus was both the man and God in the flesh. (see John 14:6-9). That is the claim.
I didn't say I don't understand it, I said it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to you either but you believe it anyway.


The record we call the gospel accounts is really all the real history we have upon which genuine Christianity is to be based. Some Christians would disagree. But then most all groups orthodox and heretical use the same 66 books besides other claims. You can understand it or choose not to.
Thats a dodge 37818. Have you sold all you have and given it to the poor like Jesus told you to do, or do you not like that particular admonition and so ignore it?

37818
04-09-2015, 06:53 AM
I didn't say I don't understand it, I said it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to you either but you believe it anyway.Oh, it makes perfect sense to me. You see, I believe the Son of God was always both with God as the Son and was God too, being also the very same nature. His human nature was not a change to His eternal divine nature. But change how He was with God. I understand the Son of God always had two natures with God. It was His nature other than His divine nature which change.



Thats a dodge 37818. Have you sold all you have and given it to the poor like Jesus told you to do, or do you not like that particular admonition and so ignore it?You fail to understand the difference. Grace vs. merit

seer
04-09-2015, 08:32 AM
Well Norman Greenbaum wanted to write a religious rock song. And because he was Jewish and did not want to use a Jewish reference for God, he opted to use "Jesus" and also thought it would be more marketable. Greenbaum told a magazine regarding his song, "It appeals to one's inner self and the need for redemption, plus, heck, who wants to go to hell?" (http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=2999) In not being a Christian he would not have understood correctly*. Again, he was Jewish.

*". . . if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." -- 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4.

Well no, you do not have to be a Christian to understand that the NT teaches salvation by grace and not works - whether one believes it or not, or applies it to their life, is another story.

Sparko
04-09-2015, 10:50 AM
Well if you admit this, then you admit also that you didn't inherit your fallen nature from Adam, you inherited it, just like Adam did, from God. Adam didn't fall, he was human, no different from you.

seems like you are determined to twist my words and take things out of context.

Adam and Eve sinned. Their nature was then corrupted. They no longer had eternal life, and they had a sin nature. Naturally, any offspring they had would inherit their nature from them. Simple genetics if nothing else.



No you are using your own definition, the religious definition. Thats what you believe sin is, disobedience to a God, a God who commanded his people to commit the very acts he enacted as sins.
"Sin" is a religious term, dumbass. Of course I am using the religious definition. :duh:








No I do not "need" her forgiveness, I only "need" to forgive myself. If you recognize that what you've done is wrong and are truly sorry for it, then it doesn't matter if the one you've offended forgives you or not. Thats their choice.So you are a sociopath after all. Your posts make more sense now.









No, it not besides the point, i am trusting my own senses rather than trusting the someone who is telling me differently. If you see the light is red, and someone warns you that it is okay, keep going, the light is green, are you going to trust your own eyes and stop or are you going to run the light based on what someone else tells you? Again, you are bound and determined to "not get" the analogy.

OK new analogy: Instead of a man telling you their is a cliff ahead, you see a sign saying "beware hidden cliff ahead" - now you can either believe that sign and not run off the cliff, or you can ignore the sign and end up running off the cliff to your death.

I chose to believe and trust the sign, you choose to ignore it. Do you think it is unfair that you end up dying and I don't, just because I believed the sign?






So when you look at your loved ones, you see evil people that deserve to burn in hell.
Romans 3: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.


Well, maybe in your case. :lol: Just kidding, In my opinion such a God can not be defined as love because true love is unconditional not vengeful.God is not vengeful. He offers salvation to everyone. Freely. You seem to be whining because it is too easy.


Well for one thing, because they don't reject him, they don't know him or believe he exists, and more so than that, because he loves them.Have you READ your own posts? You reject him. You call him vengful, a psychopath, and say you will argue with him when you stand before him, if he even exists. Yes, you reject him, you hate him, and that is evil. So why would he let you spend eternity with him, especially since you would not want to spend eternity with him?


Sparko, non-believers are not rejecting your God, they can not reject what they don't believe to exist. You, in my opinion, are playing this imaginary game in your head with an imaginary God who you believe to be talking to you and forgiving you, but in reality you are talking to and forgiving yourself.Or maybe it is you who are playing an imaginary game claiming there is no God. I guess one day we will both find out. Just don't say you weren't warned ahead of time.





Well, which is God, merciful or Just? If he is merciful then he is not being just, and if he is just then he is not merciful. So which is it? He is both.


Right, so the govenor can either be merciful or he can be just, but he can't be both.sure he can. He can offer mercy to those who are willing to change and follow him, and justice to those who refuse.





Well that assumes that such a psychopath of a God exists, which I have no doubt that he does not. Why would anyone want to spend eternity with a jealous, vengeful, tyrannous, psychopath of a God anyway? I'll bet if your own father were like that you'd get the hell away from him as soon as you could.See? as I said above, if you feel that way about God, then maybe he is doing you a favor by not making you spend eternity with him. You will get what you claim you want.


Again, that is just dumb. You can't reject or disobey that which you don't even believe to exists.You apparently are doing just that. See above.






Dumb, dumb, dumb, you are accepting your own mercy, your own forgiveness, and attributing it to your imaginary God. But that is your choice.
Well if you are right and there is no God, then I am no worse off believing than you are not believing in God. We will both cease to exist. If I am right, then I get to enjoy eternity with God, whom you reject. So either we both lose, or only you lose. Sounds good to me.






Probably because you were never a real atheist.:rofl:






Again, not my belief, yours. And unlike you I have no fear of God, because if he exists and is evil, I want nothing to do with him, and if he exists and is good, then i have nothing to fear from him.If he exists and is good, then your rejection of him is evil. A good God would punish evil. So maybe you should rethink that.



Whatever you want to believe. But personally, and I don't mean to be mean, but I think you people are silly to believe such nonsense. And as for believers, believe me I know and have known many christians in my life, and most all of them have very little knowledge of what it is (the Bible) that they profess to believe in.

Your problem is that you think YOU know what the bible teaches, so when someone tells you different, you claim they don't know the bible. The fact is, you don't know.

37818
04-09-2015, 12:01 PM
Well no, you do not have to be a Christian to understand that the NT teaches salvation by grace and not works - whether one believes it or not, or applies it to their life, is another story.Not believing in it is not to understand that God's grace is true. So not believing God's grace is true is effectively having the gospel hid to them. Otherwise explain how you understand 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

37818
04-09-2015, 12:06 PM
Well, which is God, merciful or Just? If he is merciful then he is not being just, and if he is just then he is not merciful. So which is it?The whole point of the gospel, the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross for sins, is so God can be both just and merciful. Only the God of Christ is both just and merciful. All other god claims cannot and so are not.

JimL
04-09-2015, 10:26 PM
seems like you are determined to twist my words and take things out of context.

Adam and Eve sinned. Their nature was then corrupted. They no longer had eternal life, and they had a sin nature. Naturally, any offspring they had would inherit their nature from them. Simple genetics if nothing else.
If their nature wasn't corrupted prior to their sin, then how is it that they sinned. What you inherited is a human nature no different than Adam and Eve had from the git go! There was no fall.



"Sin" is a religious term, dumbass. Of course I am using the religious definition. :duh:
Hmm, you were actually trying to be civil for a while there Sparky. Sin can be understood in the same sense as morality, either from a religious or a secular perspective.







So you are a sociopath after all. Your posts make more sense now.
And you were doing so good there for a while. I didn't say that I don't have empathy for others, I said in order to be forgiven one has to forgive themselves. If you don't forgive your own faults then someone else forgiving you doesn't resolve the issue does it?








Again, you are bound and determined to "not get" the analogy.

OK new analogy: Instead of a man telling you their is a cliff ahead, you see a sign saying "beware hidden cliff ahead" - now you can either believe that sign and not run off the cliff, or you can ignore the sign and end up running off the cliff to your death.

I chose to believe and trust the sign, you choose to ignore it. Do you think it is unfair that you end up dying and I don't, just because I believed the sign?
You didn't choose to trust the sign until you saw it for yourself, not because someone told you. Geesh!






Romans 3: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.
So as I said, when you look at your loved ones, what you see is evil people who deserve to burn in hell. And you call me a sociopath!

God is not vengeful. He offers salvation to everyone. Freely. You seem to be whining because it is too easy.
Vengence is the Lords!

Have you READ your own posts? You reject him. You call him vengful, a psychopath, and say you will argue with him when you stand before him, if he even exists. Yes, you reject him, you hate him, and that is evil. So why would he let you spend eternity with him, especially since you would not want to spend eternity with him?
Don't be silly. As I said many times, one can't reject, hate or belittle that which he doesn't even believe exists. I'm not belittling God, I'm describing the (to me) fictional character that you believe to be real.

Or maybe it is you who are playing an imaginary game claiming there is no God. I guess one day we will both find out. Just don't say you weren't warned ahead of time.
I'm not playing anything, I've not interacted with imaginary beings since I was a child.




He is both.
Contradiction.

sure he can. He can offer mercy to those who are willing to change and follow him, and justice to those who refuse.
No he can't. He can do either, but only if he is neither.



See? as I said above, if you feel that way about God, then maybe he is doing you a favor by not making you spend eternity with him. You will get what you claim you want.
When I say that I have no doubt that such a God does not exist, then how does that equate with feeling disgust for God? You need to comprehend what you are reading before responding. I don't feel that way about God, I don't believe in a God, I feel that way about what I believe to be a fictional God that "you" believe to be real.

You apparently are doing just that. See above.
You'll catch on eventually, I'm sure.





Well if you are right and there is no God, then I am no worse off believing than you are not believing in God. We will both cease to exist. If I am right, then I get to enjoy eternity with God, whom you reject. So either we both lose, or only you lose. Sounds good to me.
Nope, if I am right and there is no God we may both cease to exist, but if you are right and "your" God exists, then you get to spend eternity with a vengful, tyrranous, psychopath whom I reject. Sounds more like hell for you than for me. But as I said, I have no doubt that such a god does not exist, so don't worry yourself over such a future to much.





:rofl:
Why did you reject God in the first place then Sparko?





If he exists and is good, then your rejection of him is evil. A good God would punish evil. So maybe you should rethink that.
Yes, except that I don't reject goodness, I only reject evilness, so I have no fear. Don't get me wrong, I fear death just as much as anyone else, or not really death, but the thought of death, but I have no fear of a God, because the way I figure it is that if God is better than me, then I have nothing to fear, and if he is not, well, then he probably doesn't exist.



Your problem is that you think YOU know what the bible teaches, so when someone tells you different, you claim they don't know the bible. The fact is, you don't know.
Duh! They not only don't know what the Bible teaches, they don't know the Bible period. They've never read it, or barely read it.

Tassman
04-10-2015, 02:47 AM
Ah . . . You're presenting more claims. The common account the family relationship describes Horus as the son of Isis and Osiris. Do you have any archeological references?

The point being made is that of the pre-scientific mindset in a credulous era whereby miraculous occurrences such as virgin births were commonplace and perfectly acceptable, unlike today. There are scores of examples of which I previously outlined just a few.


And she had to put Osiris back together like a puzzle(Egyptian gods were like lego apparently), but one of the pieces was missing...

Quaint and amusing certainly, but is it any more so than the notion of a god/man being born of a virgin who had been overshadowed by the third person of a triune deity? Not really. They're all myths of a similar type and designed to emphasise the special nature of the god or king being promoted.

JimL
04-10-2015, 04:05 AM
The whole point of the gospel, the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross for sins, is so God can be both just and merciful. Only the God of Christ is both just and merciful. All other god claims cannot and so are not.
You mean to say that if that didn't happen, the sacrificial death, that God would have had no choice but to have been just, and condemned all of his creation? Think about it!

37818
04-10-2015, 05:48 AM
You mean to say that if that didn't happen, the sacrificial death, that God would have had no choice but to have been just, and condemned all of his creation? Think about it!

No. God is just. The whole of creation was going to be changed regardless of the fall of man whom He created in His image. If God had not provided any redemption for men, none would be part of the new heavens and earth to come. Not that I can see.

Michael
09-08-2015, 09:24 PM
The above is replete with contradictions. "Christians can't sin because they are not under the law" "But if a Christian should sin he has an advocate to attain forgiveness." Both can't be true!

Correct. But it will work this way, though: Because Christians don't sin, if you're a Christian, and then you sin, guess what you no longer are? HOWEVER, repent (meaning to turn away from) and do not repeat, and you will have an advocate to recover what was lost. If you do not repent, or redefine repent as something other than repenting just so you can claim to have repented, then you have not recovered what you have lost (your salvation). Exemplified in Ez. 18:19-24, explicit in v.24.

The Bible is literally brimming over with verses that make this clear. Start reading it with no assumption as to the inevitability of sin, and this will became explicitly (for most, painfully) blatant. Then, the FEW verses which may APPEAR to contradict, can be looked at contextually (etc.) to show that they don't.

The obviousness is even found in the professions of most. They acknowledge that God does not change. Yet somehow in the OT He has NO tolerance for sin, and in the NT, all is fine, as long as you made a "profession." The Jews had this, and Jesus told them that they were of their father--the devil (BLASPHEMY in His day, as this will surely, by most ppl, be considered in this day). It's all about "faith," not sin, but Jesus Himself said that all will be judged by their deeds. ("many will say, Lord, Lord ..., etc.).

The problem is that when you have sinners who love their sin too much to even try to quit sinning, who are trying to defend their "right" to sin (claiming "inability"), they have chosen a stance, a stronghold, and do not seek to overcome it but rather to justify it, nor do they seek for Christ to overcome it in them; they don't truly want to quit. The lust of their flesh, the lust of their eyes, and their pride of life, and their desire to protect their "right" to serve these same, won't let them even think of or comprehend the possibility of overcoming it. How weak such a Christ is, who cannot overcome sin; they have a failing, weak Christ, rather than admit that the failing is in themselves and their sincerity of belief and subsequent effort. HOW real is God? And just HOW important is THAT to you? God HATES sin; so WHO would seek to justify it? Why would they spend SO much time and effort attempting to justify their "right" (by default of their alleged "inability") to continue in it? Give it your ALL, ALL the time, before claiming it can't be done. The Bible is ad infinitum against sin; so who is FOR it? It is this rampant hypocrisy which confuses and drives away many. "Can't help it" ("not my fault"). Then say that we are responsible ("my fault"), creating an irrational, unjust God of confusion or myth. "It's my fault," but, "I can't help it" is contradictory. If Christians could not live without sin, then wouldn't non-Christians doing it prove that they are just insincere, rather than incapable? (Phiippians 3:5-6, the rich young ruler, etc.)

These promoters of lusts and sin will say, religiously (like the Pharisees did in their day), that the Bible is the Word of God, then use Bible to refute Bible (by misquoting, pulling out of context, etc.). They are effectively calling God either confused, a liar, or someone who changes with the wind (no substance or solidity); they create unbelief that the Bible is the Word of God, and (to them) sobeit, so long as they "get" to continue to serve the lust of their flesh, the lust of their eyes, and their pride of life. These slaves of lusts and sin will claim that Christ has set them free. But, as the Jews in their day, who also claimed to Jesus to be free, JESUS told them that they were slaves of what they DID. Again, the Bible is rampant with this, if one doesn't start with a stronghold to protect; if one wants Truth, He can be found there. They will claim that they can't help it ["It's in (meaning allegedly inherent) the flesh!"], misusing Paul's Rom. 7 because they start it with a stronghold and take it out of context. However, this creates two MASSIVE problems. First, Jesus had flesh, so now they have sinless-Jesus with inborn/inherent sin. They try to get around this with a verse about the "likeness" of flesh, but denying then the verse (misusing the Bible, to now have the Bible refuting the Bible; see the list at the end, of the type of gods that they create), which explicitly states that anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh (UH OH)... Secondly, Paul answers the questions he poses: How can I overcome this body of sin? And he answers it immediately: Thanks be to God, THROUGH (VIA) JESUS CHRIST. But, if like most verses, you stop reading where it's convenient, or where it conflicts with the men you listen to today, then just ignore God's Word (the Bible), disregard it at not being God's Word, just as you would disregard Christ, if He were real (see following explanation; I am not saying that Christ is not real!), and standing right beside you, as you committed your sins. I bring this up, because some of the most common professions include that God is real, omnipresent, omniscient, sincere (not a liar nor deceiver), relevant (even all-important), etc., and yet when I've asked ppl if they would have committed their sins if Jesus was standing right next to them at the time, the response is usually, "No way" or the such (the exceptions being the more proficient liars who see the point coming and lie to try to continue to protect their stronghold). But this means that they either didn't believe Jesus was there (not omnipresent/omniscient), that He didn't mean what He said about sin (lying), doesn't care Himself what He said (insincere), or just not really really real.

All the sincere ppl I talk to admit that their "effort" to quit is minimal to nonexistent. All arguments I have ever heard which promote "sinning Christians" either self-negate, or are circular. The have God lying, uncaring, insidious, confused, mythological, dumb, hypocritical, mean, arbitrary, disingenuous, WEAK, etc. The original Christians took this seriously; they were martyred by the droves for refusing to budge, to even tell a "little" "white" lie. Jesus took it serious; He DIED for it. The Apostles took it serious too; they also DIED for it. Nowadays, you can't hardly find anyone who PROFESSES Christ, who actually POSSESSES Christ. If you knew your very life depended on it, right here, and right now, would it change the value you put on it, the outcome of it? Would you stop NO MATTER WHAT, if the consequences were a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER? If you stepped off a cliff, you wouldn't be thinking of which sin you wanted to focus on; you'd be thinking something WAY different. Treat it like it's REAL, like GOD is REAL, like GOD MATTERS, and He MEANS what He says, and go from PRETENDING you care what He says, to CARING what He says. How? Desire for TRUTH, sincerity. Eyes on CHRIST (like Peter on the boat; take them off and SINK!). What IS the most important thing in your life and how does it compare to what you SAY is the most important thing in your life? (They praise me all the day long with their lips, BUT their HEARTS are FAR from me.) Hearts on God HATE sin, can't STAND the UGLY VILE ETC. of it; CAN'T MAKE THEM DO IT. Hearts on lusts and pride LOVE sine, "can't" stop doing it; CAN'T MAKE THEM QUIT. WHO is in YOUR heart, your Father God, or your father the devil? Choose THIS day whom you WILL serve (NOT "try" ... "occasionally" ... "when it's convenient" ... or maybe even a little more religious, like the "better" Pharisees, like the rich young ruler, but also like the rich young ruler, NOT ALL-OUT.)

Jedidiah
09-08-2015, 09:37 PM
When I was in college, there was a fairly notorious itinerant preacher named "Brother Jed" who would come by a few times a year. He claimed that he had not sinned since 1969. However, I could see clear evidence to the contrary with his false judgments of people. One example was how he once yelled at a male and female walking to class together, accusing them of fornication... when they were actually a brother and sister.

Was not me. I have yet to reach a point where I can say I have not sinned since 1969. I struggle and stumble, but I hold on to Christ.

Michael
09-08-2015, 10:35 PM
I don't think any Christian really believes that, or if they do, you've likely misunderstood what they mean when they say it. Maybe somewhere out there in this great big goofy world of ours someone is saying it and means it in the way you understand it, but if so, they're clearly in the extreme minority.

They are; always have been. You'll get PERSECUTED for doing so, possibly/probably even killed, just like Jesus, just like the Apostles. You better not telling anyone they are doing wrong, I guess. Anyone believing that all or most ppl who profess Christianity today are legit, has the path very very wide and plentiful. I wonder what JESUS said about the width of the path and the number on it? "Narrow is the path and FEW ..." wasn't it?

Michael
09-08-2015, 10:38 PM
And following the dietary laws are not going to make us the light of the world. No one is going to look at someone refusing to eat pork and proclaim: "Look at that man, what a righteous soul he is for refusing to eat pork, I can really see the love of God emanating from him."

I saw that, and agree.

Michael
09-08-2015, 10:53 PM
Another case of unintentional irony. You're claiming that Holding lacks comprehension, and then immediately after you accuse him of habitually using the ad hominem fallacy, which is manifestly false, which can be proven simply by reading his writings. Insulting someone during a debate/discussion is not the same as committing the ad hominem fallacy, you harebrained idiot. (See? I just insulted you without committing any fallacy what so ever.)

It appears that you missed something; He commits an ad hominem in his criticism of another using ad hominisms, by calling them "goons."

Michael
09-08-2015, 10:59 PM
And don't think for a minute that your apathy is impressive. No one is impressed when someone shrugs his shoulders when asked about established science that human beings nobly struggled to extract from the world and from which you benefit daily.

I'm just curious as to exactly what benefits science gives us from old earth theories. All of the benefits I can think of come from science based on current chemistry, physics, engineering, whatnot. I can't figure out how the alleged length of time the universe has existed has benefited science or our daily lives technologically. I'm drawing a blank, but it's very late and me very tired.

Michael
09-08-2015, 11:04 PM
Non-believers will see your ignorance as a fundamental lack of curiosity, which bespeaks a fear of--or stubborn unwillingness to process--that basic fact.

You chose all religious topics, so I naturally I assumed you meant dogma. What matters to you besides religion that's more fascinating than scientific epistemology--a fairly basic concept to grasp?

No you can't, since your animal nature is specifically apelike and apes have protomorality and violent, territorial, war-like behaviors--and sexuality--similar to ours. By assuming centipedes are as similar to human beings as apes, our closest relatives, are, you reveal your lack of skill to deal with these issues with potential converts. You'd be a poor evangelist in the most challenging circumstances, IOW.

Who was complaining about ad hominem attacks before? Here's a few above to look at.

tabibito
09-08-2015, 11:32 PM
Back to the first few posts ...


Is this a parody? Because John even says that if someone claims to be without sin, he's a liar, or something like that. Here's a verse.

The critical points of Romans 3:22:
for
directs attention to the reason for a foregoing statement, which in this case is found in Romans 3:20a (itself arising from the conditions stated in verse 19) and traces a series of reasons including that stated in verse 22.
all have sinned
sinned: ἥμαρτον hémarton - tense, aorist - signifies event completed before the time of the main verb.
and fall short (the main verb)
lack: hũsterountai - voice, passive/middle - signifies being acted upon (by themselves if middle) so as to want for.

The synopsised statement then is
20a by deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight, 22 for all sinned and thereby fall short of the glory of God.

1 John 1:8 does say "if we say we have no sin .... the truth is not in us" but verses 9 and 10 are part of the same topic. Interpreting this passage as referring to a claim to have never sinned is entirely appropriate.

Darth Ovious
09-09-2015, 01:58 AM
True Christians don't sin. Or so I've been told by some Christians. My response to that usually runs along the lines of: If true Christians don't sin, then I've never met a true Christian. However, this idea has been bugging me lately, and I have a number of questions about it. I note that it's not a universal Christian doctrine. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church teaches that all humans are sinners, even the Christians. That's why they have confessionals, after all. The members of the flock go to the confessionals to admit their latest sins, repent, and seek forgiveness. I've met a lot of Protestants who similarly believe that Christians sin. So the position that Christians don't sin would seem to be a minority viewpoint.

My questions:

Are there specific denominations that teach the idea that true Christians don't sin?

Is it a popular view among Christians around here?

Which would be true, under this view? Or do both flavors exist out there? Or is it some other explanation that I've overlooked?
- True Christians have already been forgiven, so nothing they do is considered to be sinful, even if it would be considered sinful for others.
- True Christians simply don't do things that would be considered sinful for others.

Do Christians who believe that Christians sin see a Biblical contradiction in the idea that Christians don't sin? And vice versa? I'd like to get a better understanding of the arguments involved. The idea that true Christians don't sin seems to me to be nonsensical on the face of it, so any attempt to make it make sense would be appreciated.

I'm going to use an example from my workplace to give an analogy. My work place has a zero accident policy. In other words they want to achieve a perfect safety record with no accidents, especially lost time accidents. In essence this goal is actually quite unrealistic and accidents will still happen, but the overall goal is to get to as close as zero accidents as possible. In order to achieve that then we need to know what the perfect standard is.

In the same way this applies to Christianity. The perfect standard is zero sin, however this is not an easy task for us humans and of course we will sin along the way but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop trying.

whag
09-09-2015, 10:05 AM
I'm going to use an example from my workplace to give an analogy. My work place has a zero accident policy. In other words they want to achieve a perfect safety record with no accidents, especially lost time accidents. In essence this goal is actually quite unrealistic and accidents will still happen, but the overall goal is to get to as close as zero accidents as possible. In order to achieve that then we need to know what the perfect standard is.

In the same way this applies to Christianity. The perfect standard is zero sin, however this is not an easy task for us humans and of course we will sin along the way but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop trying.

The point isn't to say you're a bunch of hypocritical sinners (that's immature and pointless) but rather to point out that moral perfection in human beings was never possible.

Think about it. Surely, if the first generation couldn't manage perfection, resulting generations of the same imperfect stock would never be able to manage it, either. No one would ever wager that moral perfection could've been achieved and sustained in thousands of generations forever. That's the single most ludicrous implied claim of Christianity.

tabibito
09-09-2015, 10:13 AM
Think about it. Surely, if the first generation couldn't manage perfection, resulting generations of the same imperfect stock would never be able to manage it, either. No one would ever wager that moral perfection could've been achieved and sustained in thousands of generations forever. That's the single most ludicrous implied claim of Christianity.
The first generation couldn't manage it? Are you speaking with regard to the first generation of Christians?
If so - the Biblical record explicitly (not implicitly) shows that at least some did, and shows explicitly (not implicitly) that it is impossible to a person who does not have the Holy Spirit. The only part of the whole that is implicit, is that it is not an immediate, fast, easy achievement. It is only attained by singleness of purpose.

whag
09-09-2015, 10:26 AM
The first generation couldn't manage it? Are you speaking with regard to the first generation of Christians?
If so - the Biblical record explicitly (not implicitly) shows that at least some did, and shows explicitly (not implicitly) that it is impossible to a person who does not have the Holy Spirit. The only part of the whole that is implicit, is that it is not an immediate, fast, easy achievement. It is only attained by singleness of purpose.

Nope. The first Adamic generation. Whether metaphorical or literal, the first generation couldn't manage perfection according to Christianity, and yet we're to buy the notion that God expected evolved primates to behave perfectly forever.

THAT's the ludicrous implication of Christianity. I think it eventually leads to the conclusion that human beings were meant to sin in order to usher in a perfect tear-free environment.

tabibito
09-09-2015, 10:31 AM
Nope. The lfirst Adamic generation. Whether metaphorical or literal, the first generation couldn't manage perfection according to Christianity, and yet we're to buy the notion that God expected evolved primates to behave perfectly forever.

Not relevant - the mission by Christ was centred on overcoming the limitations of being human by lending assistance through the Holy Spirit to achieve purification. The natural man, unaided, can't do it. The whole point of God becoming man was to make the impossible possible.

whag
09-09-2015, 10:45 AM
Not relevant - the mission by Christ was centred on overcoming the limitations of being human by lending assistance through the Holy Spirit to achieve purification. The natural man, unaided, can't do it. The whole point of God becoming man was to make the impossible possible.

That's one heck of a hand wave.


Sorry, but the inevitability of the incarnation due to the inbuilt impossibility of human perfection is entirely relevant. It completely shifts the conversation to the fall as an essential event to achieve a tear-free kingdom.

Sparko
09-09-2015, 10:54 AM
That's one heck of a hand wave.


Sorry, but the inevitability of the incarnation due to the inbuilt impossibility of human perfection is entirely relevant. It completely shifts the conversation to the fall as an essential event to achieve a tear-free kingdom.

and some Christians believe that too. That we had to sin, and Jesus had to come. God doesn't make mistakes. Perhaps in order for a tear-free and sin-free kingdom, we have to know and experience sin for ourselves and how it hurts others, and how serious it is. That way we won't be tempted to fall again. The bible doesn't do into that though, so it is just a theory.

tabibito
09-09-2015, 10:56 AM
That's one heck of a hand wave.


Sorry, but the inevitability of the incarnation due to the inbuilt impossibility of human perfection is entirely relevant. It completely shifts the conversation to the fall as an essential event to achieve a tear-free kingdom.

The easiest way to approach reconciliation of evolution and the Biblical record would be to simply write off the scriptures up until the time of Abraham as pure myth. But it isn't the only possible or logical reconciliation - just the easiest.
Even assuming that it is pure myth, the inability to achieve holiness unaided is I think pretty much established. How many people are there who write off their failures as a matter of only being human, and how many claim that they are as good (in moral terms) as they could be. Very few would even get as far as saying "near enough is good enough."

whag
09-09-2015, 12:53 PM
The easiest way to approach reconciliation of evolution and the Biblical record would be to simply write off the scriptures up until the time of Abraham as pure myth. But it isn't the only possible or logical reconciliation - just the easiest.
Even assuming that it is pure myth, the inability to achieve holiness unaided is I think pretty much established. How many people are there who write off their failures as a matter of only being human, and how many claim that they are as good (in moral terms) as they could be. Very few would even get as far as saying "near enough is good enough."

Evolution or not, the significance of the bible emphasizing the first generation's failures is an inadvertent acknowledgement the human experiment was never intended to play out sinlessly. If true, sin was obviously meant to be expressed in order to bring about the ultimate environment. This is hardly acknowledged by most of the church for obvious reasons.

whag
09-09-2015, 01:05 PM
and some Christians believe that too. That we had to sin, and Jesus had to come. God doesn't make mistakes. Perhaps in order for a tear-free and sin-free kingdom, we have to know and experience sin for ourselves and how it hurts others, and how serious it is. That way we won't be tempted to fall again. The bible doesn't do into that though, so it is just a theory.

Genesis inadvertently acknowledges that by saying the first couple couldn't get it right.

The doctrine of Adam creating original sin is silly. Rather, those drives that express themselves as sin are teleological and have always been with us.