While I think "sin and win theology" as terminology is so slanted to be meaningless, just the same, No, I don't believe that Christians must sin, or that God cannot wholly sanctify.
Does this change either the content or demeanor of your post?
Really?
Yet, you are alone. The majority here arguing against the possibility of Holiness. If any of your answers were different, then the accusation of "sin-and-win" would stand. Keep in mind, if a theology opposes the possibility of holiness, and the necessity of sinning, which many do.... then this is not a strawman.
On the other hand, "Sinless Perfection" is as far as I can tell, a purely fake strawman that I have never seen any real evidence of its existence. It is made up by those who hate the nature of God and His holiness. Let's face it, it is cynically poured out to accuse Christians of dishonesty and being a Pharisee that is "earning their salvation."
Aren't we to return good for evil?
No! But returning "reason" to those that are "reasonable," "Dogmatic" to those that are "dogmatic," and "unreasonable" to the unreasonable is not "evil.
But even so. It sounds like you may have had the wrong idea about me. I believe completely that God can wholly sanctify someone. And there is no requirement that we commit any sin ever again.
I am happy to hear that! Yet you are no alone in the discussion. The vast majority here do not believe as you do. In defending their strawman, you end up looking like you support their concept of "sin-and-win." (Which does exist!)
You asked about "my point" in responding to you. It is to show why there is no foundation to criticize a non-answer, and to clarify that a non-answer is not a dodge, but that it is not reasonable. The question of a multi-question strawman that is a doctrine that no one has ever taught, and judging something from them not answering... goes both ways.
And let's be sure to define sin correct, the good that you know to do, if you don't do it, it is sin.
You are correct in stating that a misconception, or wrong definition of sin, either leads to sin, or the impossibility of not to sin.
I would make it a bit broader than a single verse with no context.
Sin as an "act" (As a "state" this is a deeper subject).
"Sin is the transgression of the law." 1 Jn. 3:4
In this, we see an essential element... transgression of the law.
Secondly we see,
"To him, therefore, that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17
In this we see the second element... knowledge of what is wrong, and willfulness to do wrong.
So, sin, as a transgression or violation as an "act," is in my mind, better defined as...
"a willful transgression of a known law of God."
Many already have a bias as to what sin is, and will paint the picture much broader. This idea that God judges according to a man's
light and knowledge does not fit in with their current definition of sin. Consider the following:
"Jesus said unto them, if ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now you say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." John 9:41.
"if I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin." John 15:22.
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." Luke 12:47-48.
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4;17.
I was taught that James 4:17 was speaking of "sins of omission." It sounded good, and I held to that for years. But when I examined Lange's Commentary on the verse, I was surprised:
"The reference is not to sins of omission, but to sinning against the light and knowledge, to doing evil the knowledge of good not withstanding... the persons, whom James addressed knew well enough that they ought to do good, but separated their knowledge from their practice and did evil. (Lange's Commentary,) James, pages 121-122. After reading it several times in context, I believe that he is correct; the context speaks only of sins that they were
doing, and not sins of leaving things undone. Otherwise it would condemn Jesus for not healing more people, not feeding more people, etc.
I can visit the sick more than I do, help the widows and orphans more, and visit those in prison. Yet, here I sit typing.... is that "sinning?" No!
Would defining "sin" as:
"A willful transgression of a known Law of God" put a different spin on how you conceived what many here are saying?