Does ALL sins include "Past, Present and Future" sins?

[justbyfaith]

different word

Really? Why don't you elaborate on that?

 

[ChristisGod]

Really? Why don't you elaborate on that?

its only used 3 times in the N.T. in Galatians 2:11 and 1 John 3:20-21


Original Word: καταγινώσκω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: kataginóskó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-ag-in-o'-sko)
Definition: to blame
Usage: I condemn, blame.
HELPS Word-studies
2607 kataginṓskō (from 2596 /katá, "according to, down to," intensifying 1097 /ginṓskō, "know experientially") – properly, to find as decisively guilty and on the basis of direct, personal acquaintance; specifically condemn by having a first-hand awareness of the facts; to charge as guilty with specific (pointed) facts.

Galatians 2:11 V-RPM/P-NMS
GRK: ἀντέστην ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν
NAS: because he stood condemned.
KJV: because he was to be blamed.
INT: I opposed because to be condemned he was

1 John 3:20 V-PSA-3S
GRK: ὅτι ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ ἡμῶν ἡ
NAS: our heart condemns us; for God
KJV: our heart condemn us, God
INT: that if should condemn our

1 John 3:21 V-PSA-3S
GRK: ἡμῶν μὴ καταγινώσκῃ παρρησίαν ἔχομεν
NAS: our heart does not condemn us, we have
KJV: our heart condemn us not,
INT: of us not should condemn boldness we have

Looks like the KJV mistranslated it in Gal 2:11.

Thayers
Galatians 2:11; to accuse, condemn: τίνος, any one, 1 John 3:20f,

hope this helps !!!

 

[justbyfaith]

κρίσιν
κρίσις
krisis

κρίσις krísis, kree'-sis; decision (subjectively or objectively, for or against); by extension, a tribunal; by implication, justice (especially, divine law):—accusation, condemnation, damnation, judgment.

My argument would be that the Greek word in John 5:24 (kjv) does indeed mean condemnation; and in the English it is indeed not the same word as condemn as in Galatians 2; my argument stands that in John 5:24 (kjv) there is no condemnation for them who are in Christ Jesus while it is also true that in Galatians 2 it is not the same word as condemnation but in all reality it is to be translated "to be blamed"...and even in the definition that you have given of the word in Galatians 2, that is a possible translation of the word; while it may also be translated as condemned; and since it is not the same word as we find for condemnation in John 5:24 (kjv), we can determine that it does not mean condemn in the same sense as is written in John 5:24 (kjv)...wherein the word condemnation means condemnation to hell; and we find that Peter was not condemned to hell in Galatians 2 but that he merely was to blame.

 

[ChristisGod]

κρίσιν
κρίσις
krisis

κρίσις krísis, kree'-sis; decision (subjectively or objectively, for or against); by extension, a tribunal; by implication, justice (especially, divine law):—accusation, condemnation, damnation, judgment.

My argument would be that the Greek word in John 5:24 (kjv) does indeed mean condemnation; and in the English it is indeed not the same word as condemn as in Galatians 2; my argument stands that in John 5:24 (kjv) there is no condemnation for them who are in Christ Jesus while it is also true that in Galatians 2 it is not the same word as condemnation but in all reality it is to be translated "to be blamed"...and even in the definition that you have given of the word in Galatians 2, that is a possible translation of the word; while it may also be translated as condemned; and since it is not the same word as we find for condemnation in John 5:24 (kjv), we can determine that it does not mean condemn in the same sense as is written in John 5:24 (kjv)...wherein the word condemnation means condemnation to hell; and we find that Peter was not condemned to hell in Galatians 2 but that he merely was to blame.

You miss the point that Paul had condemned Peter for his hypocrisy- he stood condemned. The meaning being he was without excuse for his willful sin of hypocrisy. Paul is not saying Peter was eternally condemned which the passages you are quoting have to do with those in Christ are not going to be condemned at the Judgment. Its Christs righteousness that we will cover us not our own.

The bottom line here is Peter was guilty of practicing sin, he remained saved and did not lose his salvation or Apostleship. Paul did what Jesus commanded believers to do in Matthew 18:15-20. Confront the sinning brother to restore him. Paul did the same thing in 1 Corinthians 5 confronting the sinful brother and 2 Corinthians 2 when he had repented and there was restoration.

2 Corinthians 7:8-13
Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while— 9 yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. 10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. 11 See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter. 12 So even though I wrote to you, it was neither on account of the one who did the wrong nor on account of the injured party, but rather that before God you could see for yourselves how devoted to us you are. 13 By all this we are encouraged.

hope this helps !!!

 

[justbyfaith]

The meaning being he was without excuse for his willful sin of hypocrisy.

Peter's sin was not willful.

As a matter of fact, I would say that he was trying to be obedient to such spiritual principles as are found in Romans 14:1 - Romans 15:1 and 1 Corinthians 8. In being senstivie to the consciences of the Jewish people who had arrived on the scene.

I believe that he was caught between a rock and a hard place.

He was probably blindsided when Paul called him a hypocrite to his face.

As the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7), he had the Jewish people in mind who he was ministering to and his only sin was in that he was not entirely sensitive to the Gentiles and the effect that his behaviour might have on the gospel to the Gentiles.