What is Freedom from sin & do you have it.

Ken Rank said:

I can't imagine what verses 8 and 10 have to do with this. The answer is anyone reading, unless you didn't mean 1 John 1:8-10?

Click to expand...

Yes, I meant those verses. This is off topic, but I just want to see if you think like a Semite. Why does 8 and 10 contradict 1 John 3:9 "9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God."

Ken Rank said:

Find me one verse that says we are guided by our conscious. I need to study this. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I may be mis-understanding, but by "conscience", I suspect she means obeying God's indwelling Spirit's leading.

We are told that whatsoever is not of faith is a sin. The minute we get back to a set of written commandments rather than obeying the indwelling ruler, we are back to law, which strengthene sin's power over us.

That is why for one, eating meat offered to idols is perfectly acceptable. Why? His or her conscience does not offend them. However, for another, who in his mind thinks it sinful,if he does eat that meat, he has sinned. Same action, but for one, there was no sin.

Does that make sense?

Blessings,

Gideon

Alithis said:

Since I'm the original poster and these verses are going to be raised in the topic of freedom of sin .
I consider it fully ON TOPIC..
please continue...

Click to expand...

Well, we'll see if he has a Western view or the original. From his first comment about these verses, he has a Western view.

Gideons300 said:

I may be mis-understanding, but by "conscience", I suspect she means obeying God's indwelling Spirit's leading.

Click to expand...

I understood that (or thought that from the start) after the first post. However, if that is her position (as you state it), then she needs to stop using the word conscious because, based on how it is defined today in our culture, it makes it look like she is saying she can do whatever she personally determines to be correct and cut God out of the deciding what is right or wrong.

Alithis said:

This has nought to do with whether you have freedom from sin.

Click to expand...

The wages of sin is DEATH... if we still die... if we still watch our loved ones die... innocent children, parents, siblings, friends.... then we are still paying the wage of sin EVEN IF we are forgiven of sin.

See, no matter how emotionally tied we are to a particular view point... or how intelligent we are or believe ourselves to be... the truth remains, we still die. Death has lost it's sting because we have the promise of the resurrection, but we still die which means, again, we are declared innocent and belong to God NOW.... but have not had the penalty removed entirely at this point. That is coming when Yeshua returns, perfects us... and reigns in peace from His throne.

1stcenturylady said:

Yes, I meant those verses. This is off topic, but I just want to see if you think like a Semite. Why does 8 and 10 contradict 1 John 3:9 "9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God."

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying... personally, I don't believe we have been born again yet or... not in the fullness of what being born again entails. This is why we can still be tempted, perhaps even sin (hopefully realize it, repent, and get back to being an obedient servant) and yet still belong to Him now. This salvation experience is a process not an overnight, genie like... snap of the finger change. We do change... over time. But as I said before... if we are still dying, then we have not been perfected yet... the wage of sin is still within us which is why 1 John 3:9 and 1 John 1:8 & 10 appear to contradict.... they don't... we have not been fully born from above YET.

Ken Rank said:

Thanks for clarifying... personally, I don't believe we have been born again yet or... not in the fullness of what being born again entails. This is why we can still be tempted, perhaps even sin (hopefully realize it, repent, and get back to being an obedient servant) and yet still belong to Him now. This salvation experience is a process not an overnight, genie like... snap of the finger change. We do change... over time. But as I said before... if we are still dying, then we have not been perfected yet... the wage of sin is still within us which is why 1 John 3:9 and 1 John 1:8 & 10 appear to contradict.... they don't... we have not been fully born from above YET.

Click to expand...

A Christian doesn't willfully sin according the third chapter. How is that possible if our spirit hasn't been born again?

You are correct in a way about verses 8 and 10 not being about Christians, but why is that how a Semite would understand it anyway?

When you are born again , your soul can't sin because holy Spirit dwell inside it , but you still have corrupted body that will die , christian is supposed to fight body and it's wicked desires . You will get not corrupted body on the last day

Ken Rank said:

I understood that (or thought that from the start) after the first post. However, if that is her position (as you state it), then she needs to stop using the word conscious because, based on how it is defined today in our culture, it makes it look like she is saying she can do whatever she personally determines to be correct and cut God out of the deciding what is right or wrong.

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying Ken. Thanks.

The world's view of conscience is each person doing what is right in his or her own eyes.

I like to refer to it as Christians however, as our "God conscience". If the Spirit dwells in His children, then that same Spirit will lead us and correct us, amen? And if we do not listen, and buck up in self mode, the chastening process begins. The danger for us is that if we ignore the chastening, we are "turned over to satan, that we might learn not to blaspheme." And after many dealings, if we still insist on "our way, with our stamped bus passes to heaven", as tares, decieved completely that all is okay, will find that they were the ones who said "Lord, Lord, have we not......?", only to hear back the terrifying truth that He never truly knew us.

Our present day Christianity is strong on forgiveness but sadly, totally ignorant of God's call for us, thru grace, to bring our bodies under, as we learn the HOW of possessing our vessels in righteousness and true holiness. Unbelief has gripped our hearts and we have become blinded to God's promise to "cause us" to walk in full obedience.

We can call it conscience, we can call it being led by the Spirit, but one thing is for sure. In these last days, God will do what He has to do to awaken us from our Laodecian slumber, and our hearts, long ago hardened by sin and compromise, will become again as soft as babies bottoms...... IF we let Him in.

Those who heed the Spirit's call and respond with tears and full surrender will experience the reality of the joyful Christian walk to such a degree that what thry previously thought as impossble will become routine.

But a word of warning here. Those who are told the full truth of the true gospel and are given simple instruction in HOW to keep their hearts pure and their consciences clean, HOW to be in the world but not of it, How to find real victory over sins that have so easily beset us, and still say "The old wine is better. I am saved because I said the prayer, so why sweat it anyway?" are going to learn that such thinking will, if not repented of, rob them of their eternal glory.

We are about to be given much, and just as the Bible tells us, to whom much is given, much will be required. Look, His yoke is easy but make no mistake, it is still a yoke. God can no longer be our co-pilot. He will sit on the throne of our hearts so He can bless us beyond measure, but if we refuse? Welcome to weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. May that fate not be found by any who read these words.

Blessings,

Gids

1stcenturylady said:

A Christian doesn't willfully sin according the third chapter. How is that possible if our spirit hasn't been born again?

You are correct in a way about verses 8 and 10 not being about Christians, but why is that how a Semite would understand it anyway?

Click to expand...

Words matter to me sis. In Hebrew... which is important here because I can't imagine a scenario both in name and grammar structure where the book of Hebrews wasn't written in Hebrew.... there are 3 words for sin. We have chata'ah, avon and pesha. Now some bible versions do not differentiate... but you need to or else the point is lost.

Chata'ah is sin.... but sin isn't just "missing the mark" sin is trying to hit the mark and missing. In other words, the miss is unintentional (or unknown).

Avon - Again, trying to hit the mark but getting caught up in an emotion that, temporarily, causes you to turn away and aim at another target.

Pesha - this is knowing what target God wants you to hit, and aiming at another target on purpose. This is rebellion, plain and simple.

My point is... when you say, "willful sin" I think "rebellion" because rebellion is deliberate, willful and NO... a Christian wouldn't do that. A Christian might get caught up in something and stumble but come back.... or just miss the mark he aimed at... but not knowingly stand against the Father's will.

So "if we say we have not sinned we make him a liar" isn't talking about rebellion... but 3:9 is... go look. Same Greek word in 1 John 1:8 and 10 and 1 John 3:9.... but the 3:9 verse is a different form of the word and that form aligns to the idea of rebellion, not unintentional sin. So the 1st chapter is dealing with unintentional sin.... the 3rd chapter is dealing with rebellion. Therefore, no contradiction at all... it is really dealing with two entirely different concepts.

Going away for the weekend... won't be able to respond till Monday or so. Be blessed.

Ken Rank said:

Words matter to me sis. In Hebrew... which is important here because I can't imagine a scenario both in name and grammar structure where the book of Hebrews wasn't written in Hebrew.... there are 3 words for sin. We have chata'ah, avon and pesha. Now some bible versions do not differentiate... but you need to or else the point is lost.

Chata'ah is sin.... but sin isn't just "missing the mark" sin is trying to hit the mark and missing. In other words, the miss is unintentional (or unknown).

Avon - Again, trying to hit the mark but getting caught up in an emotion that, temporarily, causes you to turn away and aim at another target.

Pesha - this is knowing what target God wants you to hit, and aiming at another target on purpose. This is rebellion, plain and simple.

My point is... when you say, "willful sin" I think "rebellion" because rebellion is deliberate, willful and NO... a Christian wouldn't do that. A Christian might get caught up in something and stumble but come back.... or just miss the mark he aimed at... but not knowingly stand against the Father's will.

So "if we say we have not sinned we make him a liar" isn't talking about rebellion... but 3:9 is... go look. Same Greek word in 1 John 1:8 and 10 and 1 John 3:9.... but the 3:9 verse is a different form of the word and that form aligns to the idea of rebellion, not unintentional sin. So the 1st chapter is dealing with unintentional sin.... the 3rd chapter is dealing with rebellion. Therefore, no contradiction at all... it is really dealing with two entirely different concepts.

Going away for the weekend... won't be able to respond till Monday or so. Be blessed.

Click to expand...

Well we certainly agree that there are different levels of sin. Some translations actually put "willfully" in 1 John 3 that a Christian does not commit "willful" sin. And yes that is definitely rebellion against God.

Numbers 15:22 starts a section on a sacrifice for unintentional sin, so we see that God does determine differences. Some denominations claim, sin is sin. No, not to God. Those same denominations claim all sin is willful. No, God sees the heart.

What I was talking about the Semitic view of 1 John 1, and 3 is the Semitic styles of writing. Even if written in Greek, the authors were Hebrews and use that style of writing. If you will see 1 John 1:5 through 10, every other verse is a contrast. In this case it is light verses darkness. The same can be seen in chapter three. Every other thought from 4 through 10 are opposites. As you know numbering was added later and the first sentence of verse 6 should actually be at the end of verse 5. In chapter three the contrast is sinlessness vs. sinning.

The point is verses 6, 8 and 10 of chapter one are NOT describing a Christian. Verse 9 is how to become a Christian, or get restored to God if you commit a willful sin. One clue of this style is 8 and 10 almost saying the same thing, so why are they separated? Shouldn't verse 9 come after 10 as well? Anyway. That is just one of the styles of writing.

Another is parallelism. Like Mark 11:9-10 “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David!”

This style helps when defining grace. Acts 4:33 uses the terms great power, great grace, so we see that grace is power.

And, of course, Hebrew idioms are helpful to understand hard sayings of Jesus, like good eye and bad eye, to say generous vs. stingy.

1stcenturylady said:

What I was talking about the Semitic view of 1 John 1, and 3 is the Semitic styles of writing. Even if written in Greek, the authors were Hebrews and use that style of writing. If you will see 1 John 1:5 through 10, every other verse is a contrast. In this case it is light verses darkness. The same can be seen in chapter three. Every other thought from 4 through 10 are opposites. As you know numbering was added later and the first sentence of verse 6 should actually be at the end of verse 5. In chapter three the contrast is sinlessness vs. sinning.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize grammar was what you meant, you said 'thought like' and I thought you meant me as compared to those who wrote the books. The Christians world views the NT as a Greek work, but the truth is this... the language of Judea at that time was Aramaic. Greek would have been known, at least enough, to function in a state occupied by Rome. But these were still Jews in Judea who thought like Jews... they were not Hellenists, in fact, a surprising amount of the NT is addressing the differences between Hellenistic Jews (Greek thinking/Greek raised Jews) and the more concrete Semitic Jews. Anyway... I believe that most of the NT books were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. We can derive this from sentence structure and other grammatical nuances. One historical note that I find VERY interesting is that Eusebius, a contemporary of Constantine and a church historian AND somebody who would clearly have had a Greek bias wrote in his Ecclesiastical History (and I will paraphrase right now because I don't have time this morning to grab the book and find the page.... - Paul wrote his letters in Hebrew and had them translated into Greek by Luke... this includes Paul's gospel. And Peter wrote his letters in Hebrew and Mark translated them into Greek and that includes Peter's gospel. - That would mean, if true, that the gospel of Luke and the gospel of Mark were actually written by Paul and Peter.... IF TRUE.

Anyway.... not only do the sacrifices differentiate sin but as I shared, the Hebrew language does it clearly. The problem comes in translation but I will say this.... the KJV translators recognized the different meanings between the words and they almost always translated chata'ah as sin, avon as transgression or iniquity, and pesha as rebellion or willful sin.

Blessings sis.

Ken Rank said:

I didn't realize grammar was what you meant, you said 'thought like' and I thought you meant me as compared to those who wrote the books. The Christians world views the NT as a Greek work, but the truth is this... the language of Judea at that time was Aramaic. Greek would have been known, at least enough, to function in a state occupied by Rome. But these were still Jews in Judea who thought like Jews... they were not Hellenists, in fact, a surprising amount of the NT is addressing the differences between Hellenistic Jews (Greek thinking/Greek raised Jews) and the more concrete Semitic Jews. Anyway... I believe that most of the NT books were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. We can derive this from sentence structure and other grammatical nuances. One historical note that I find VERY interesting is that Eusebius, a contemporary of Constantine and a church historian AND somebody who would clearly have had a Greek bias wrote in his Ecclesiastical History (and I will paraphrase right now because I don't have time this morning to grab the book and find the page.... - Paul wrote his letters in Hebrew and had them translated into Greek by Luke... this includes Paul's gospel. And Peter wrote his letters in Hebrew and Mark translated them into Greek and that includes Peter's gospel. - That would mean, if true, that the gospel of Luke and the gospel of Mark were actually written by Paul and Peter.... IF TRUE.

Anyway.... not only do the sacrifices differentiate sin but as I shared, the Hebrew language does it clearly. The problem comes in translation but I will say this.... the KJV translators recognized the different meanings between the words and they almost always translated chata'ah as sin, avon as transgression or iniquity, and pesha as rebellion or willful sin.

Blessings sis.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have Eusebius' book and keep it handy.

I'm in my library right now surrounded by books, not a novel in sight. And yes, I was even taught as a child that Luke and Mark were actually the writings of Paul and Peter. I seem to have always know that. I wonder who renamed them and why? That I don't know.

1stcenturylady said:

Yes, I have Eusebius' book and keep it handy.

I'm in my library right now surrounded by books, not a novel in sight. And yes, I was even taught as a child that Luke and Mark were actually the writings of Paul and Peter. I seem to have always know that. I wonder who renamed them and why? That I don't know.

Click to expand...

You are unique sis... most not only have no clue that this is a possibility, but when they hear it they recoil. As for the renaming... Luke and Mark... if Eusebius is correct, translated them, perhaps edited to a point... it was their handwriting that was passed on... at least in terms of manuscripts we have today.

One interesting note... Jerome, when he translated the Vulgate, claimed to have an "original" copy of Matthew in Hebrew that he translated from.

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot, you are proving to be an interesting person.

Blessings.
Ken

Alithis said:

Great you sorted that out.
Now... What is freedom from sin and do you have it.

Click to expand...

Yes and no is the answer. Yes because we now belong to God, death has lost it's sting (because of the promise of the Resurrection) but no because we still die (which is the wage of sin), decay, get disease, and are exposed to all manner of unrighteousness in this world, still. So free... with a caveat.