You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
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).
Sin is missing the mark and missing the mark is sin.
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
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.
How about you just check back with me with a PM the next time you catch yourself sinning.
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.
I know exactly what Jesus meant by being born again in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
I have said nothing of the kind and they are both quite literal.
No one here has cursed you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I do understand scripture.
