Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I've run the gamut of denominations over the years. Frankly, I don't agree with your sentiment in the slightest.
Of course, this begs the question as to whether you are sanctified and whether you have ever willfully sinned.
What you may also not realize is that your claims about the Reformed contradict this point. You say that their doctrines lead people to sin, but the Reformed have, in fact, accepted Christ as their savior. Some of us can even point to a definite point in time when we were baptized by the Holy Spirit.
You condemn in certain terms the belief that we are imperfect in this regard, because you say that this belief causes us to sin. Yet, you say that the Spirit keeps us (perfectly) from sinning. The only reconciliation is that a person loses the Holy Spirit by thinking himself imperfect. I find that rather odd, because I know people to lose the Spirit for the exact opposite, by thinking themselves perfect.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.Then you haven't heard what I said. It is the Spirit within me doing all the work.
The book of 1 John was written to Christians. The apostle says, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8–9)."When" we sin? That is the difference. It is "IF" not "WHEN" That is one of the differences between us.
Sin is missing the mark and missing the mark is sin.The other I am against is the notion that "sin is sin."
Nonsense.Christians do not commit willful sin once sanctified.
Nonsense.Christ is NOT our advocate for willful sin, as that would require we repent and crucify Him all over again. .............
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
You're saying that it's the Spirit doing all the work. But if He falls short in His work, we will go to Hell.
Some gospel that.
Besides that - you are absolutely wrong when you say that He does all the work. Even John Calvin didn't believe that.
Now who's teaching that it doesn't matter what you do once you're saved?
We are commanded to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. We realize that He is working His work in us - but we also realize that we are to work as well.
That's systematic Reformed theology and you'd do well to embrace it. Your theology is all over the map.
The book of 1 John was written to Christians. The apostle says, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8–9).
It is clear from this passage that even those who have been born again and redeemed by the blood of Jesus will still sin.
But even if you were right and the Reformers and I are wrong - it still doesn't (as you have charged us) make our position one of saying that we should sin that grace may increase.
Frankly - I hope you are right and you manage to overcome sin completely in your life. I should be so diligent.
But what I do not hope is that you believe it will justify you before God. That is another gospel and, although it appears to me that you are preaching it, I really do hope you don't believe and teach that.
Sin is missing the mark and missing the mark is sin.
If you are trying to say that Reformed theologians teach that all sin is of equal consequence - you are absolutely wrong about that. No one I know of teaches that.
Nonsense.
Paul was set apart (sanctified) for use as the Apostle to the gentiles. Paul, by his own admission, sinned frequently after he was set apart for that purpose.
Nonsense.
Peter was sifted by Satan as wheat. As a result he willfully sinned and Christ prayed for Him as his advocate.
Where do you get this stuff?
When we repent - we do not crucify the Lord again. He was crucified once for all.
I know you're charismatic (just as I am). But you aren't Catholic as well are you? That would explain a lot by the way.
Are you perhaps referring to the passage in Hebrews 6 where the author talks about the consequences of the Jew's rejection of Jesus as their messiah?
Wherever you're coming from - you don't seem to have a very good grasp on the basics of the faith.
By the way -
I very much admire your zeal for living a sinless life. It is a good thing to not only believe you can live sinlessly but do your best to do so.
But in your zeal for overcoming sin and admonishing those whom you believe to be teaching an Antinomian theology - it appears that you have fallen headlong into one of the oldest and potentially the most deceptive and destructive of all heresies.
You appear to have moved from what are quite commendable admonitions for Christians to live a righteous life into the preaching of another gospel - which, according to God, is no gospel at all.
Many will say to the Lord on the day they meet Him face to face that they have done mighty works and made Him the Lord of their lives and He will tell them that He has never really known them.
The scriptures tell us that they will be utterly speechless when they hear those awful words.
Many of these folks will have overcome sins and done things for the Lord that I can only pray I will achieve in my life before I meet Him.
But what they will not have done apparently is to have rested in the sufficiency of Christ's finished work as their only hope of salvation.
You seem to be of such yourself and may God lead you to a proper understanding of the gospel.
I won't continue to argue the finer points of the doctrines of grace with you.
I hope to see you on the other side of this life.
I see you haven't understood much of what I say. I'm not going to repeat it. You'll twist it even further.
1 John 1 is addressing his congregation. IN his congregation were Gnostics who were infiltrating the church. They are in the congregation, but not in the Church. 1 John 1:6, 8 and 10 are these people. In no way does someone who does not have the truth (the Holy Spirit) in them a Christian. Romans 8:9 Those people DO sin, for the seed is not in them preventing them from committing sin. But that's just another example of Reformation error.
How about you just check back with me with a PM the next time you catch yourself sinning.Let's take it one question at a time. Tell me one issue, and I'll respond. I don't want to give up on you. I apologize.
How about you just check back with me with a PM the next time you catch yourself sinning.
I promise I won't say I told you so.
So what?
Jesus also took a new name when He entered the world.
And your point is what?
Thank you.
Exactly as I have said.
John went before the Lord, not in a newly created spirit, but in the spirit of Elijah.
John's spirit and the spirit of Elijah were one in the same.
This has been explained to you.
The Lord knows that many, such as yourself, will bristle at the thought of a man living two lives (even if he didn't die during the first life).
Pretend for a moment that you never heard me or anyone like me expound on the concept of John being Elijah.
Now read for the first time, as it were, without prior prejudiced, the words of Christ.
"Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist."
"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come."
Now - if you still cannot receive what the Lord clearly taught - I take it from what He said parenthetically on the subject that it's no really big thing to God.
You are in good company in so resisting the Lord's teaching.
But, as all know, being in the company of a great many doesn't always make a person's theology right.
By the way - do you believe, as Nicodemus should have known as the teacher of Israel, that fallen mankind is spiritually dead and needs to be born again?
Perhaps you don't understand that. Or perhaps you just think that John was conceived without sin and escaped that curse.
Either way you must deal in some way with the fact that John was so spiritually alive in his mother's womb that he recognized his creator when he was in His presence..
I choose to believe that the explanation is to be had in believing what Jesus said about John rather than by subscribing to the idea that John was born sinless just as was the Lord was or some such special case and had no need of being born again as did the rest of mankind.
That's he kind of thing I was alluding to when I spoke of those who have understanding receiving more and those who do not having even what they think they have taken away from them.
Of course if you choose not to explore the scriptures in such a systematic way that's up to you.
There are theologians and then there are theologians.
They were both given names to use in their new ministry for God and that fact is spelled out for us in the scriptures.You equate Yeshua with Eliyahu and Yohanan?
I know exactly what Jesus meant by being born again in order to enter the Kingdom of God.You don't even understand, like Nakdimon, what Yeshua means by "born again"..
I have said nothing of the kind and they are both quite literal.You say the one is literal while the other is not. Believe what you want...
No one here has cursed you.Proverbs 26:2
Like a flitting sparrow, like a flying swallow,
So a curse without cause shall not alight.
They were both given names to use in their new ministry for God and that fact is spelled out for us in the scriptures.
They are both cases of spirits existing before hand with God in the spirit world and being brought into this physical world through a birth process begun by God for the reason of ministry on behalf of God.
I know exactly what Jesus meant by being born again in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
He meant exactly what the analogy illustrated.
He meant one who has been generated in secret (by man in the case of new natural life and by God in the case of new spiritual life) - must go through an obvious birth process in order to be able to function in their respective kingdoms.
I didn't mention willful sin... the Hebrew word chata'ah... sin... is unknowing or unintentional. The Yom Kippur sacrifice which pointed to Yeshua's work... the "sin sacrifice" mentioned in Hebrews 10... is the Yom Kippur sacrifice and it is chata'ah. We >>ALL<< fall short, none of us are capable of walking this thing out perfectly because at some point, even if Unintentionally, we we sin. And that is STILL SIN.I have faults, but they are faults of bruised fruit. Jesus prunes them just like everyone. But willful sins that you know are sins? The desire to do them is just not there. Do you? You know they are sins unto death, don't you? Why would you even want to?
No one here has cursed you.
Again - it fine with me if you believe that Christians are able to not sin willfully after believing. You are to be commended for trying to live a perfect life. I wish you all the best in that endeavor.
But when you teach that a believer who sins willfully is "unsealed" by the Holy Spirit and lost again until such time as they repent and ask forgiveness - you are preaching another gospel.
If you do not believe what I just said, by all means please clarify it for me.
Either way - your charges that Reformed theologians teach that we should sin that grace may increase are false.
I believe you know that. For you to make false charges against us is willful sin.
Even so I don't believe that the scriptures teach that you must confess and repent of that sin or be lost again.
I didn't mention willful sin... the Hebrew word chata'ah... sin... is unknowing or unintentional. The Yom Kippur sacrifice which pointed to Yeshua's work... the "sin sacrifice" mentioned in Hebrews 10... is the Yom Kippur sacrifice and it is chata'ah. We >>ALL<< fall short, none of us are capable of walking this thing out perfectly because at some point, even if Unintentionally, we we sin. And that is STILL SIN.
So, to say that John the Baptist didn't sin is adding to Scripture. To say he didn't willfully sin, i.e. rebel, would be correct. We should not see rebellion (willful sin) by ANY Christian. But we should expect to see things done without intention that fall short because we haven't been perfected yet.
Never once did I say that you did. But every time I say "sin" you HEAR willful sin and that isn't how it is defined in the bible. You said John the Baptist didn't sin and I am saying he didn't willfully sin, but he would have unintentionally sinned (like we all do) and THAT IS STILL SIN.How many times do I have to say it that I don't commit WILLFUL sin. I have never said anything about not committing trespasses, which are also sin, but unintentional. 1 John 1:7 and 1 John 2:1 are these unintentional sins. Reformationists believe 1 John 2:1 includes willful sins. I don't. What do you say?
Never once did I say that you did. But every time I say "sin" you HEAR willful sin and that isn't how it is defined in the bible. You said John the Baptist didn't sin and I am saying he didn't willfully sin, but he would have unintentionally sinned (like we all do) and THAT IS STILL SIN.
Let me say it this way. Let's just pretend that the food laws are still valid. You've been eating ham all this time and if those commands are valid, you have sinned. Not willfully, there is NO INTENT to sin, you simply didn't know. Yet, by definition, that is still sin... the Yom Kippur sacrifice was specifically for those kinds of sins... SINS. Not willful... not rebellion... but still sin.
John the Baptist did not go to his grave without having sinned. If he had, he would be walking the earth today because the grave was not designed for perfection. Only one walked without sin and the grave could not hold him.
John the Baptist did not go to his grave without having sinned. If he had, he would be walking the earth today because the grave was not designed for perfection. Only one walked without sin and the grave could not hold him.
I have never badgered you, not once. I have always appreciated and respected you. There is one issue here, you see all sin as intentional... but the Hebrew language reveals intentional and unintentional sin. You lump it all together and the language in the OT does not. By YOUR definition, I actually agree with you... a Christian should NEVER commit rebellion... willful sin. But a Christian can and does fall short unintentionally from time to time. That is why I asked you about the heart... road rage.... lust... hatred/anger......not to badger, but to show that despite your definition, even you can't walk this out perfectly 100% of the time. When you don't, it is sin... not intentional, not rebellion, just unintentional SIN but still sin.Read #59 where you badgered me. You didn't differentiate the differences in sin did you. You lumped them altogether with one word, sin. No differentiating. I say in English either, willful sin or trespass/unintentional sin.
I'm saying it is possible that John the Baptist never committed a willful sin.
Indeed I did do understand. That is because we have been talking about two subjects. You seem to be the one who lacks understanding as to what I said and didn't say.You say literally and then you say analogy...you have no idea.
I do understand scripture.It is fine if you can't and won't understand Scripture and want to teach your own theology, just don't expect others who know better to buy into it.
Let me say it this way. Let's just pretend that the food laws are still valid. You've been eating ham all this time and if those commands are valid, you have sinned. Not willfully, there is NO INTENT to sin, you simply didn't know. Yet, by definition, that is still sin... the Yom Kippur sacrifice was specifically for those kinds of sins... SINS. Not willful... not rebellion... but still sin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?