Did John the Baptist sin?

[1stcenturylady]

I, actually, would be confident making the same statement. But you didn't say "willful" sin in the first post you said this.. and that is why I was trying to make it clear to you and others reading. Sin doesn't have to be intentional, and John did not walk without ever having unintentionally sinned because, if he had, he would have resurrected in 3 days like the Lord because the grave was not designed for sinlessness (perfection), it was designed for sin and death.

Blessings.
Ken

I never said Jesus committed a trespass.

 

[1stcenturylady]

But you didn't say "willful" sin in the first post you said this.. and that is why I was trying to make it clear to you and others reading.

You're kidding. Here is what I said in the first post "John the Baptist received the Holy Spirit in the womb, thus he was literally born again before he was even born. 1 John 3:9 says that those who have the seed (Holy Spirit) do not (willfully) sin, so did John the Baptist ever willfully sin?"

And you say, I never said "willfully"????????????????????????????

 

[1stcenturylady]

There is one issue here, you see all sin as intentional... but the Hebrew language reveals intentional and unintentional sin.

Now you are just lying. I DO differentiate, and you have to know that unless.....well, I won't say what....

 

[1stcenturylady]

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.

I won't write back, you seem to have a growing issue with me and I won't be the cause of dissension if I can help it. Blessings.

When a statement you make is obviously untrue and against me personally, I take issue with that. I hate lying. But so does God, so I'm not sinning, not even unintentionally.

 

[Ken Rank]

I believe God when he said to Peter, "Do not call unclean, what the Lord has cleansed." You can believe He didn't mean it, that He meant something else, and that's fine, except that you sin unintentionally by teaching others to keep this Old Covenant law. Paul went on to say that the only sin against the body is NOT what food you intake, but sexual immorality.

I said, "LET'S JUST PRETEND." It was an EXAMPLE to show what unintentional SIN is. Never mind.. it isn't possible to have a deeper discussion with you. That's ok... please relax, there was no attack here. Be blessed, we'll both move on now.

I will do what you said you would do and didn't, click ignore.

 

[Marvin Knox]

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.

Again - it's 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.

Your words.

I appears in reading back through this thread that Ken is not the only one you have issues with here.

Perhaps you should examine yourself and see if the problem is you and not necessarily others.

Please respond to my question above about what you believe and we can start over if you are willing.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I appears in reading back through this thread that Ken is not the only one you have issues with here.

Perhaps you should examine yourself and see if the problem is you and not necessarily others.

Please respond to my question above about what you believe and we can start over if you are willing.

Okay, I will be happy to discuss this with you. Just tell me what you think I believe, and I will confirm or show you what I actually believe and why. But one issue at a time.

Ken and I agree on this, he just keeps telling me I don't believe the same, and sometimes ludicrously.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Perhaps you should examine yourself and see if the problem is you and not necessarily others.

You assume majority rules. Just remember there are more on the wide road than on the narrow. Numbers don't matter. Truth does.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Just remember there are more on the wide road than on the narrow. Numbers don't matter. Truth does.

Boy - that's sure the truth.

Okay, I will be happy to discuss this with you. Just tell me what you think I believe, and I will confirm or show you what I actually believe and why. But one issue at a time.

I have accused you of preaching an incorrect message concerning salvation. I have even called it a false gospel.

If I have done so because I understand you incorrectly - I want a chance to correct my mistake and apologize.

This is pretty straight forward.

What exactly do you think happens to a born again person when he sins willfully?

I.e. - what happens to his status as one seated with Christ in Heaven.

Assuming that person confesses and repents eventually - how does that then change his status in Heaven - if it has changed in the mean time?

Assuming that person dies for some reason with unconfessed and or sin he has not repented of - what is his status before God in eternity?

I'm talking about salvation here. (Everyone, full on hyper Calvinists included, believe that willful sin effects our personal relationship with the Holy Spirit including successful prayer and rewards or losses at the Judgment Seat of Christ.)

Assuming that you answer in a clear and concise manner and depending on your answer - I will determine if my opinion of your beliefs has been accurate or if I need to apologize for jumping to conclusions and or misunderstanding you.

It is entirely possible that I have taken offense at your original charge that I and other like me believe and teach that we should sin so that grace may increase.

 

[Ken Rank]

I really wanted to send this privately but you don't have that option available so I will post this here.

You equate Yeshua with Eliyahu and Yohanan? You don't even understand, like Nakdimon, what Yeshua means by "born again". You say the one is literal while the other is not. Believe what you want...

Respectfully... most everyone at this point knows Jesus wasn't called Jesus. Yeshua (Aramaic) or Yehoshua (Hebrew) and when we use "Yeshua" they know who we mean. But if you want to communicate your point with others, whatever that point is... you really should use words they understand. I read biblical Hebrew, but I had to look twice at the transliteration you used (Nikodimon) and I shouldn't have to. This is an English forum and seeing God is who confounded the languages (inspiring them all) then to try to communicate using words others are not familiar with not only makes it harder on them... many won't even try because you are coming off weird to them. I am not trying to be demeaning or argumentative... I am speaking from experience as 20 years ago I felt the need to do the same thing you're doing now. And... I wasted a lot of time and opportunities using words others had no clue what I meant.

When God causes us all to speak ONE pure language, we will and it will be because of work HE DID. We don't need to force that work on others before it is time. Being a gentile to a gentile or a Jew to a Jew only means we recognize who and where somebody is and speak to them on a level they can understand. To speak from a position above where they are, doesn't help them, and only creates division and animosity.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[1stcenturylady]

Boy - that's sure the truth.

I have accused you of preaching an incorrect message concerning salvation. I have even called it a false gospel.

If I have done so because I understand you incorrectly - I want a chance to correct my mistake and apologize.

This is pretty straight forward.

What exactly do you think happens to a born again person when he sins willfully?

I.e. - what happens to his status as one seated with Christ in Heaven.

Assuming that person confesses and repents eventually - how does that then change his status in Heaven - if it has changed in the mean time?

Assuming that person dies for some reason with unconfessed and or sin he has not repented of - what is his status before God in eternity?

I'm talking about salvation here. (Everyone, full on hyper Calvinists included, believe that willful sin effects our personal relationship with the Holy Spirit including successful prayer and rewards or losses at the Judgment Seat of Christ.)

Assuming that you answer in a clear and concise manner and depending on your answer - I will determine if my opinion of your beliefs has been accurate or if I need to apologize for jumping to conclusions and or misunderstanding you.

It is entirely possible that I have taken offense at your original charge that I and other like me believe and teach that we should sin so that grace may increase.

One difference is foundational. We haven't discussed this on this thread, but I assume you believe grace is only unmerited favor. Correct me if I'm wrong. So let's start there.

I believe it is unmerited favor in that Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Note the word "yet" before "sinners." This tells us that we will no longer be willful sinners AFTER we are born again. That is not all sins; there are unintentional sins also that are called trespasses that God continually cleanses as we forgive others their trespasses against us.

I seem to have an advantage. When you learn a little bit of Semitic writing styles, and Hebrew idioms you come to see the Scriptures in a different way. You see it from the viewpoint of the author, and that opens up the Scriptures. Those of us in the western world are used to a Greek writing style - complete paragraphs. The apostles were foremost Jews, no matter what language they wrote in. They could write in Greek, but with a Jewish structure/writing style. Some of the differences have to do with my extra knowledge on these writing styles resulting in understanding what the apostle is actually meaning.

One of those writing styles is parallelism. Saying the same thing twice in different ways for clarity. Here is one. Acts 4:33 It shows what grace becomes AFTER the Holy Spirit has come upon you.

"And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all."

Grace is now the power of God in the life of a Christian to no longer sin. Not by our own willpower from a carnal nature, but through the Spirit killing the old nature, and creating a new nature, with new desires; desire to love what God loves, and hate what God hates. It becomes second nature. This is why Paul said, we are dead to sin. It is through the power of grace.

1 Peter 2:24

and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Romans 6:2 How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Not receiving it from the Lord is one thing. Arguing against what He taught and teaching contrary on the internet is quite another.

Yet you are doing both. Like I said, don't expect people who know better to buy into your opinions...It's OK, keep flailing away, you are on ignore so I will not have to see any more of your silly theories...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

speak to them on a level they can understand. To speak from a position above where they are, doesn't help them, and only creates division and animosity.

Blessings.
Ken

Shalom Ken!
Regarding Marvin, I agree with you...
So how about addressing the issue? What say you? Reincarnation? Was he actually Eliyahu (Elijah) born as a baby (since he was taken alive as an adult, was there some sort of transmigration of the soul)? Was Yeshua (Jesus) really Moshe (Moses) born as a baby (since there was a prophecy saying "one like Moshe")? Is there anywhere in Scripture where this has happened before?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Yet you are doing both. Like I said, don't expect people who know better to buy into your opinions...It's OK, keep flailing away, you are on ignore so I will not have to see any more of your silly theories...

I'll post this on the off chance that you really haven't hit that ignore button yet. also for the benefit of anyone who happens to have been following our conversation.

Actually I'm not arguing with the Lord about it. I'm clearly agreeing with Him about it.

It's also not a silly theory. It's what the Lord said about the matter of John/Elijah. He otta know. Don't you think?

I have no trouble receiving what He said. If you do, like I said, go ahead on.

 

[Ken Rank]

Shalom Ken!
Regarding Marvin, I agree with you...
So how about addressing the issue? What say you? Reincarnation? Was he actually Eliyahu (Elijah) born as a baby (since he was taken alive as an adult, was there some sort of transmigration of the soul)? Was Yeshua (Jesus) really Moshe (Moses) born as a baby (since there was a prophecy saying "one like Moshe")? Is there anywhere in Scripture where this has happened before?

The word "like" is a simile, which is a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as. Two "unlike" things being compared to each other through the use of like or as. So, if there was to be one "like Moses" then it isn't "Moses" but rather Moses is the one to whom the OTHER is being compared. Why Moses? Because he faced the one ruling over his people and through God's strength, led his people out of bondage and ultimately into freedom. What did Yeshua do? faced the Adversary, faced death, and ultimately leads his people to freedom.

If ANYONE believes that "one like Moses" means Yeshua was Moses reincarnated... then they are adding to Scripture. As for John, he came in the SPIRIT OF Elijah, he wasn't literally Elijah. He had the same anointing, thus we can say he came in the Spirit of Elijah.... but that doesn't mean he was Elijah.

There is no reincarnation in the bible. There is in Kabbalism, there is in some Gnostic writings, but there isn't in Scripture. Reincarnation removes the need for a messiah to die for his people. Who needs a savior when we can just come back as something or somebody else and fix what we did wrong the last time?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The word "like" is a simile, which is a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as. Two "unlike" things being compared to each other through the use of like or as. So, if there was to be one "like Moses" then it isn't "Moses" but rather Moses is the one to whom the OTHER is being compared. Why Moses? Because he faced the one ruling over his people and through God's strength, led his people out of bondage and ultimately into freedom. What did Yeshua do? faced the Adversary, faced death, and ultimately leads his people to freedom.

If ANYONE believes that "one like Moses" means Yeshua was Moses reincarnated... then they are adding to Scripture. As for John, he came in the SPIRIT OF Elijah, he wasn't literally Elijah. He had the same anointing, thus we can say he came in the Spirit of Elijah.... but that doesn't mean he was Elijah.

There is no reincarnation in the bible. There is in Kabbalism, there is in some Gnostic writings, but there isn't in Scripture. Reincarnation removes the need for a messiah to die for his people. Who needs a savior when we can just come back as something or somebody else and fix what we did wrong the last time?

So we agree.

 

[Marvin Knox]

One difference is foundational. We haven't discussed this on this thread, but I assume you believe grace is only unmerited favor. Correct me if I'm wrong. So let's start there.

You are wrong. I don't believe that and neither do the Reformed teachers you often take issue with.

Grace is not only unmerited favor. Grace is often extended to individuals based on performance and or attitude.

I believe it is unmerited favor in that Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners.

Who would argue with that?

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Note the word "yet" before "sinners." This tells us that we will no longer be willful sinners AFTER we are born again. That is not all sins; there are unintentional sins also that are called trespasses that God continually cleanses as we forgive others their trespasses against us.

No it does not tell us any such thing.

There is no way you can logically arrive at that conclusion from that scripture.

That is not all sins; there are unintentional sins also that are called trespasses that God continually cleanses as we forgive others their trespasses against us.

As they like to say at Geico - everyone knows that.

I seem to have an advantage.

You know what happens when you assume don't you?

I'm also somewhat familiar with Semitic writing styles and Hebrew idioms.

One of those writing styles is parallelism. Saying the same thing twice in different ways for clarity. Here is one. Acts 4:33 It shows what grace becomes AFTER the Holy Spirit has come upon you.

"And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all."

It's obvious that great grace was upon them after Pentecost. What is not a logical deduction from the passage is that the great power and great grace only came upon them at or after Pentecost and that it was not on them before.

Although I'll agree that that is what the entire witness of early Acts teaches us - I'm just trying to keep your statements logically accurate. They haven't always been logical deductions (as in the case of your deduction from reading Romans 5:8).

Grace is now the power of God in the life of a Christian to no longer sin. Not by our own willpower from a carnal nature, but through the Spirit killing the old nature, and creating a new nature, with new desires; desire to love what God loves, and hate what God hates. It becomes second nature. This is why Paul said, we are dead to sin. It is through the power of grace.

No one that I have read on this thread has a problem with that.

But whether a born again Christian can be completely successful in not grieving the Spirit of God so that that power flows uninterrupted is still up for debate. You haven't made the point that the scriptures teach that they will or indeed that they can be completely successful.

I hope you're right and I hope you are one of the ones who succeeds in making the grade. As for me - I've already failed and sinned many times over my 70 plus years (sinned "willfully" as a matter of fact). I think most Christian's if not all are in the same boat as I am.

1 Peter 2:24
"and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed".
Romans 6:2 "How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"

1 Peter does not say that we have all died to sin. It says that Christ bore our sins that we might die to sin. It is an ideal and it is not always the case that we do not have some sin still living in us.

In answer to the attitude you have accused Reformed theologians of having (advocating sinning that grace may increase) - Romans simply says that those who have died to sin should not live in it.

That is true whether you think of "dying to sin" as something that happens when you receive your new nature (a legitimate theological position held by many Reformed thinkers) - or an ongoing "dying to sin" at each temptation - the concept of sinning willfully that grace may increase is something that no one I know of teaches.

Having politely addressed your post - I will ask you again to answer my very straight forward questions.

At the risk of alienating you again - I must say that when a person beats around the bush as you are doing when asked simple theological questions, there is usually one of two reasons.

First - perhaps you have not really thought through the ramifications of your beliefs before the questions were asked and now you need time to consider what your beliefs eventually lead to. Perhaps you're having second thoughts about what you believe.

Second - your honest answer is one which you know would be either easily rebutted or would put you in an untenable theological position.

At any rate - please answer my questions in your next post so I can ascertain whether or not my prior judgment of your theology was correct or incorrect.

Thank you.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Having politely addressed your post - I will ask you again to answer my very straight forward questions.

There is a third reason, and that is I answered the first, and just scanned the rest. And that is the truth. I only had strength for one question. That is why I asked for you to ask one question at a time. But it seems you want me to go back and hunt through the haystack for the questions. I wasn't really aware there were any. What I'm not doing is avoiding answering any question. I know what and why I believe. I just have to do so in great pain at the moment. Sitting is hurting me, and I can't even walk. I've been in bed all day, didn't even go to church. Visiting with you IS my church today. LOL

I'm also somewhat familiar with Semitic writing styles and Hebrew idioms.
It's obvious that great grace was upon them after Pentecost. What is not a logical deduction from the passage is that the great power and great grace only came upon them at or after Pentecost and that it was not on them before.

Although I'll agree that that is what the entire witness of early Acts teaches us - I'm just trying to keep your statements logically accurate. They haven't always been logical deductions (as in the case of your deduction from reading Romans 5:8).

You say you know Semitic writing styles, and yet can't verify that Acts 4:33 is one of them? If you say so. It is obvious to me. And it is obvious that even though the disciples walked and studied under Jesus, directly, they did not always have the POWER for which Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem. Peter wouldn't have denied Christ if he had, and the rest wouldn't have abandoned him either. And as I recall, it may have been you that mentioned Satan sifting Peter as wheat. Satan didn't get what he wished for. Peter DID receive the Holy Spirit as did the others when Jesus blew His Spirit into them after the resurrection. And again, a stronger dose on the Day of Pentecost, whereas the other believers that made up the 120 received the first on the Day of Pentecost, and the stronger dose in Acts 4:31.

I still see the "yet sinners" of Romans 5:8 as pertinent and even profound that we indeed go from sinner to saint. It shows there was a before, in order to see the after.

1 Peter does not say that we have all died to sin. It says that Christ bore our sins that we might die to sin. It is an ideal and it is not always the case that we do not have some sin still living in us.

Yes that we MIGHT die to sin. Universalism is a heresy, thus not everyone will, but might IF the sacrifice for them and all that it entails is applied to them. What that entails is never quenching the gift of the Holy Spirit once applied for POWER. If you quench the power, you go back into feeling your way around in the dark.

You are wrong. I don't believe that and neither do the Reformed teachers you often take issue with.

I'm glad that you, personally, see that grace is not just unmerited favor. But, you would be the first Reformationist type Christian I've read on the forums who doesn't. In your profile, couldn't you narrow down your denominational preference to narrower than the broad "Protestant"? That category is about 30,000 to choose from, and is only one step less broad than "Christian," second only to "Non-Denominational." I'm Protestant, and Non-denominational, but believe in the gifts of the Spirit are for today, but not all the man-made rules of holiness that some calling themselves, Pentecostal, burden themselves with. I do wear makeup, slacks, play cards, go to movies, dance and like wine in small doses. Thus I'm Charismatic, but not Word of Faith in their extreme (name it and claim it.)

Another reason for believing that grace in the life of a believer is the power of God, equipping us for righteousness; and not unmerited favor covering human weakness while we can't stop sinning, is Hebrews 10:29. If it was not power to not commit willful sin, but covering of all sins, both willful and unintentional, as unmerited favor implies, then how could you stamp on the Spirit of Grace? You would be establishing unmerited favor, not trampling on it. No! By willfully sinning after been given the power not to, is why it is trampling on that power, the Spirit of Grace.



The highlighted parts below that I do NOT agree with, scripturally, and why I believe the Reformation was a dangerous church age preaching a doctrine that makes weak Christians by lying to us.

Martin Luther "Sin boldly"):
"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard, for you are quite a sinner."

Martin Luther only understood the "covering of our sins by the blood of bulls and goats" and superimposing that weakness on to the blood and sacrifice of Jesus, and not that Jesus was manifested to TAKE AWAY our sin, and in Him there is no sin. Why would Luther claim the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, and state we will still commit sin. That describes not taking away, but merely covers. That doesn't mean the sins are still there, just covered up. It doesn't mean that the sins we keep committing our automatically forgiven as with the doctrine of "Past, Present, and Future" sins, but rather on the Scriptural "PAST" sins are cleansed. No where does an apostle claim you have no strength in this life, as Luther did.

Here is a question for you. Read 1 John 1 and show me what Semitic style of writing it is. Diagram it by verse number. It is evident that Luther did not understand the Semitic style of writing of this chapter either, basing a heresy he wound up teaching on it.

Please ask me another question. I'm going back to lie down and will read and answer ONE question later. Right now, I can't think of what I may have missed.

 

[Marvin Knox]

..... it seems you want me to go back and hunt through the haystack for the questions. I wasn't really aware there were any.

Sorry for your health issues.

Here are the questions again so you don't have to hunt them down.

They are really only one question when all is said and done. But it is phrased several ways so that no one can miss exactly what your answer is.

This is an American questioning style we use in debate to make sure the other person doesn't avoid straight answer by pontificating. I have no idea how often they did the same when debating in Semitic societies.

The basic question is meant to draw out from you to what degree you believe our ability to overcome sinful tempations after being truly born again effects our justified status before God and our eternal destiny.

I.e. - do you or do you not believe that our overcoming sin either saves us or keeps us saved or gets us saved again and again as we cycle through dramatic falls and rises in the sanctification phase of our Life.

This is pretty straight forward.
What exactly do you think happens to a born again person when he sins willfully?

I.e. - what happens to his status as one seated with Christ in Heaven.

Assuming that person confesses and repents eventually - how does that then change his status in Heaven - if it has changed in the mean time?

Assuming that person dies for some reason with unconfessed and or sin he has not repented of - what is his status before God in eternity?

I'm talking about salvation here. (Everyone, full on hyper Calvinists included, believe that willful sin effects our personal relationship with the Holy Spirit including successful prayer and rewards or losses at the Judgment Seat of Christ.)

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question so I can determine if I have believed wrong about your beliefs.

 

[Ken Rank]

What I don't understand is how some come to the conclusion that we cannot sin (at all, even unintentionally) once we have been filled by the Spirit. Paul said the giving of the Spirit was a down payment, a deposit, an earnest which means "there is more to come." We don't have it all YET... we WILL BE perfected, the writing of the law WILL BE completed and when it is... all will know the Lord and there will be no more reason to teach. But we still need to teach which means the work is NOT DONE. We seek perfection, we strive for righteousness, but we don't always succeed because we remain trapped in mortal, fallen, and decaying bodies that are AWAITING being made incorruptible. Until that day, we remain corruptible and there is no way around that one.