This verse in and of itself should settle the matter. But it seems that the Word of God means nothing.
The Decoy Gospel
- Thread starter Episkopos
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Marks, Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No!
This is the nonsense of answering hypotheticals that are based on strawman assumptions that do not actually exist.
If you are asking if what I believe matches your ever-changing strawman, I will not respond to that.
Do you believe in the sin and win theology that thinks that Christians cannot but sin, and that God cannot sanctify someone wholly?
Here, if you answer, you have three accusations. All or some might be true.... with exceptions.
1). If you believe that Christian cannot be delivered from sin, and always sins.... then I could leaven you with the whole lump and claim... you have a "sin-and-win" theology! Yet, since you probably would not answer that without "qualifications," does that mean that you cannot defend your "sin-and-win" theology? That something is wrong because you are evasive?
This is the "logic": you propose.
2). Watch how when caught in their unbiblical defense of sin and sinning, and show them Scripture that condemns such a heresy... and watch their temperament!
Just like you, if you get critical and defensive about their statements, you attack the person with an ad hominem.
By your standard, you reveal that your position has to be wrong!
3). When truth is revealed, those that cling to their philosophy and heresy like to twist truth on its ear and use a non sequitur or an ad hominem since they do not agree with you; they must lack "Love" instead or looking for "Truth."
It is not unkind or unloving to answer someone with the same logic, tone and intensity they provide for what they call "truth." Answering in the same manner is respecting them in that you are telling them something in the way they think they find truth.
Last edited:
"And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whosoever keeps His word, in him the love of God is perfected, by this we know that we are in Him."
Justification is not by your own works earning salvation apart from Jesus Christ, yet you are not in Jesus Christ if you do not follow His commandments.
This verse in and of itself should settle the matter. But it seems that the Word of God means nothing. It seems so very clear...
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?
Aren't we to return good for evil?
What are we trying to accomplish with our discussion? Prove we have the heavier hammer?
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.
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. And, all that is not of faith.
Much love!
Actually God imputing (accounting) means that He sees righteousness....like in Abraham or for Phinehas. One has to understand just how wrong the false gospel is...even changing the meaning of words to present the lie.
Ps. 106:30Then Phinehas stood up and intervened,
And the plague was stopped.
31And that was accounted to him for righteousness
To all generations forevermore.
So then Luke imputes righteousness to Cornelius, Zacharias and Elizabeth and Peter imputes righteousness to Lot.
And we can impute righteous to people too...meaning we can discern that a person is righteous. Like when Eric Liddell refused to run on a sunday so as to honour God ...I would credit (impute) that to him for righteousness.
Now for God to impute righteousness means that the person is TRULY behaving righteously in God's sight.
The problem is that the decoy gospel gets people to impute righteousness to themselves. And of course they also impute righteousness to each other.
But God has no say in that.
I'd say that those who "cling to philosophy and heresy", who "like to twist truth" and use fallacies rather than honest discussion, lack both love and truth.
Much love!
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."
No! But returning "reason" to those that are "reasonable," "Dogmatic" to those that are "dogmatic," and "unreasonable" to the unreasonable is not "evil.
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.
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?
Last edited:
Let me ask you . . .
Were I to say that sinless perfection is completely possible in this life as a theological possibility, and yet we can know that it won't actually be achieved in this life, as we know we will continue to be improved so long as we are in these bodies, do you agree?
Much love!
Actually, that would be to substitute God's judgment with your own, in saying, It would have been good had Jesus healed that person . . . if only He had!
Something to remember . . . the crippled man at the beautiful gate . . . that Peter and John healed . . . everyone knew him. Everyone knew he's been begging alms there many years. Jesus was in and out of the temple over the years of his ministry, why was that man not healed?
But if he had been healed, then he wouldn't have been there when Peter and John were, so they could heal him, and then preach to the crowd in attendance.
Imagine this man. Years laying begging as cripple. Then 1000's healed all around him but not him, for whatever reason. And then Jesus is gone, it's all over, and there he is, still crippled! But then come two men . . . no money . . . OK . . . wait, what? And he is healed! Can you imagine how great his rejoicing?
Much love!
Theoretical notions are not testimony. One must enter into Christ to experience HIS perfection...and from there bear fruit...an eternal fruit. God is sinlessly perfect....as is His Son. And as we abide in Him we are putting on His perfection to walk just as He walked. But very few can attest to that. Instead they go by a human reasoning based on religious theories. Without testimony there should be NO opinion...at least if one is wise.
Leave the theories to the religious ideologues.
And I would invite anyone who has not been baptised into Christ to do so, and find life.
Much love!
We please Him when we believe, it is enough any hink else is naughty children trying to look good. You know that bit, without faith you cannot please God
No you dont if you did, you would be happy with the fact that if people believe in Him than He is happy. Its al about what He did not you.
No one has done any such thing it is the religious, making grace into something that it is not, even you will only be saved by grace, nothing else.
Comfort my flesh , for people who know not sin you seem to spend a lot of time dwelling on it, Putting yokes around mens necks is not Gods doing.
CharismaticLady
Well-Known Member
“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”
The key word there is "covered." Paul is talking about the Old Covenant where the blood of bulls and goats COVERS sin, while they remain, of those under the Ten Commandments - the Law of Moses, and the Old Covenant, and also all those before the Law, like Abraham. He trusted God, and obeyed Him, and it was counted unto him as righteousness.
The New Covenant is where Jesus TAKES AWAY our sin; it is not merely COVERED. Also it is only our PAST sins that are taken away. 2 Peter 1:9. Why, because when total repentance is accomplished, Jesus gives us grace - the power of God's sinless Spirit, that gives us a new nature that has lost the desire to sin. 2 Peter 1:2-4. Our conscience becomes super-sensitive by the Holy Spirit, and it is too hard to go against your new nature of righteousness. Instead, you follow your Spirit-filled conscience. 1 John 3:21.
Romans 4 is still talking about the Law of the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant righteousness is no longer just imputed as to an Old Testament saint.
1 John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness IS righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning.
Jesus in us is the huge difference between Romans 4 vs. Romans 6 and 8.
Also, the word "impute." This is only with regards to Old Testament Jews. In Romans 4, Paul is teaching on the Law which is going away, and introducing grace in chapter 5. But grace doesn't mean what you think it means. The word "imputed" is only found in these two chapters, but they MUST be understood in context of the following chapter 6, and the concluding chapter 8 - THE SPIRIT. To base a whole doctrine on set-up chapters like 4 and 5, where the law is abolished, leaves one believing there is no law, you can sin with no consequences. That is exactly what you've done, but not you alone. How many on the forum believe that Jesus came to take away the consequences of sin? That makes God the author of licentiousness. God forbid! Romans 6:1-2 and 15. The New Covenant has new laws - laws of the Spirit, where the eternal law of God is written on our hearts (conscience).
GRACE:
2 Peter 1:2-4
2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
The grace of God FREES US FROM SIN. Not the consequences. The wages of sin is still death. But once you start following your conscience, and never going against it, you have assurance before God. It is easy. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. The Spirit is doing ALL the heavy lifting.
Romans 6:
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
Last edited:
CharismaticLady
Well-Known Member
JESUS FREES US FROM SIN, NOT THE CONSEQUENCES.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
Jesus said, if you love Me, keep my commandments.
1 John 3:23-24
23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.
24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
Last edited:
