I do not use this verse to justify my own sin, personally. I take it as an admonishment unto true humility, as it is described in Luke 18:9-14 in the example of the publican, and in David's prayer of penitence in Psalms 51, esp. Psalms 51:3.
Eternal Security
- Thread starter Rollo Tamasi
- 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!
I do not use this verse to justify my own sin, personally. I take it as an admonishment unto true humility, as it is described in Luke 18:9-14 in the example of the publican, and in David's prayer of penitence in Psalms 51, esp. Psalms 51:3.
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
I'm going to bed, so in a nutshell, there are two types of sin. 1 John 3 is just one of them - willful sins which are unto death - a Christian cannot commit these, except by rebellion against God. But there is another that we can commit even while walking in the Spirit - trespasses. They are automatically cleansed, continuing to make us "sinless."
It has always been in the back of my mind that the love of God is from the Holy Spirit; and on the forefront of my posts. Do I not always reference Luke 7:36-50, 1 John 4:19, and Romans 5:5 when I mention my motivation for obedience? These verses are there just about every time for someone to put their mouse over so that the scripture will come up.
Don't be so quick to judge. That's a sin, you know. But I know that you didn't do it on purpose, so you're forgiven ahead of time because of that and not because of Jesus' blood... but of course I'm being facetious!
Love for Christ is not the same thing as willpower, impaho. It is a supernatural motivation that comes from the Lord (Philippians 2:13).
Last edited:
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
I'm a teacher, and frankly, there is a lot you don't know and why you say you sin. If that is the truth, you ARE a sinner, just not a Christian. We cannot lie, even if you think it makes you look humble.
I have to do some gardening in the morning but I may be online later in the day tomorrow. I think I'm going to bed too. I have spent so much time today trying to read through this entire thread and respond to it (and I didn't get all the way through) that I haven't gotten in my normal reading time. So I think I'll do that now and then hit the hay. Good night to all.
Last edited:
Okay one more post and then good night.
You are not my teacher, because of 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Your only audience here biblically is other women who frequent these boards; and even then, you need a male teacher to be your covering.
Also, you would do well not to judge the salvation of others; that is dangerous business because of Luke 6:37 and Isaiah 54:17.
Last edited:
It was only 8:00pm; I'm going to go a little longer until my bedtime which is around ten.
It is not a lie to say that we are sinners. It is a statement of truth that comes from the truth dwelling within us (Psalms 51:6, 1 John 1:8).
And also, it is not that I say that I am a sinner because I think it makes me look humble; that would in fact be catering to outward appearances because of pride: it would in fact be false humility. But if you will take a radical look at Luke 18:9-14, I think that you will see as I did that calling yourself a sinner to the public (but especially before God) is true humility: it was the Pharisee who was prideful in proclaiming himself to be righteous. Jesus said in the context of this parable that whoever exalts himself shall be abased, and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted; so I believe that He is teaching in this passage about what it means to have true humility and also what it means to have pride.
In 1 Timothy 1:15, Paul calls himself the chief of sinners in the present tense; and testifies that for us to say the same is a trustworthy saying and worthy of all acceptation.
There is no "fleshly' interpretation attached to this. I simply state it as it appears in that scripture.
See John 5:17-18. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
John testifies under inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Jesus broke the sabbath (and also made Himself equal to God the Father in His statements).
How is this possible since Jesus was indeed sinless? He came as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedec. And because there was a change of priesthood, there was of necessity a change also of the law (Hebrews 7:12). So Jesus could break the sabbath and remain blameless. Jesus did indeed break the sabbath, in claiming that He was working on that sabbath day; and also in that He told the lame man in the context of the story to pick up his mat and walk. In giving the lame man this commandment, He by proxy disobeyed the sabbath. He was teaching people to violate the sabbath, in fact, by commanding the lame man to violate it that day. He was setting forth an example in His teaching. And yet Jesus was still without sin. Why? Because His priesthood wasn't after a carnal commandment but after the power of an endless life. He was and is perfect in His nature and character; and therefore, if He violated some letter of a law that He Himself had established, He was not at fault. The violation of the letter of that law didn't change the fact of His nature and character; which is immutable as God (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8).
I would only point out to avoid confusion that New Testament righteousness isn't according to the law (our own righteousness); but is that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. (Philippians 3:9)
Last edited:
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
It is true that for the unbelieving sinner, he is required to obey the law perfectly in order to be saved, from conception into eternity (Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48).
For the person who is redeemed by Christ, on the other hand, obedience is not a requirement but a privilege.
The born again believer is forgiven when he sins (Romans 4:6-8); and also, the Spirit within Him motivates him to love God and neighbor as scripture commands (Romans 5:5).
If anyone does not have that motivation, they are not born again.
So one might conclude in the carnal mind that "yes, we must obey God."
But in all reality, for the believer in Christ, obedience is not a requirement but a privilege. It is not, "We must obey God," but, "I get to obey the Lord."
See the difference?
Because I am born again I want to obey.
But if I obey because I think I have to (and the desire to obey is actually absent, so that the requirement becomes my only motivation), I am attempting to earn my salvation by works, which is a no-no (Ephesians 2:9 and context).
So now you are going to accuse me of being scornful and hating knowledge? That it simply not true of me; and I know this because of my extensive times of reading in God's word.
But Paul said, I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man...and then referred to the order of creation as being the reason why he held that as a principle. I am not being scornful in holding that scripture to be inspired and applicable; and it is also true that I am a man who loves knowledge.
Do you want me to condemn your tongue? For that is my heritage as a servant of the Lord (Isaiah 54:17); you do not do well to rise up against me in judgment.
Last edited:
Jesus is the Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3). God the Father is the Lord (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21). There is one Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:5, Jude 1:4 (kjv), Mark 12:29). The Lord is God (Acts of the Apostles 4:24 (kjv), Jude 1:4 (kjv), Mark 12:29 (kjv)).
A point to consider: anytime you see the word 'and' between the Father and the Son, it is the Greek word 'kai' which can also be translated 'even'.
Last edited:
YHWH became flesh, so He is a physical being in that sense.
And also, DNA is kind of like a synonym of your make-up: what you are all about.
Indeed he was "cursed is very one who does not obey" is the Old Covenant according to Galatians 3.
Genesis 2 "for the in day you eat - you shall surely die".
Adam was in "purest form" of the Old Covenant agreement. "Obey and live" ... this is irrefutable.
So also are you until you accept the Gospel - the New Covenant.
Bible details matter.
Obviously. And as the Bible says - sin is by definition "transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4
Adam could not curse, or take God's name in vain, or do violence or ... all of that would be sin.
God says to Cain "SIN is crouching at your door but you must master it" -- sin of what "eating the wrong fruit"???
Your rejection of the details of scripture places you in opposition to every Gospel statement known to every Bible scholar on Earth when it comes to what is sin.
And sin by definition is "transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4
Creative writing "again" -- no text says that.
But the Bible DOES say this --
See Romans 4:15 - "where there is no Law there is no SIN" Romans 5:13
See Romans 5:12 - there WAS SIN starting with Adam. 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world
See 1 Tim 2:14 - SIN starting with Eve
See Genesis 4 - SIN even at the time of Cain
see 1 John 3:4 - SIN IS (by definition) "Transgression of the LAW" even in the NT
These are basic Bible facts agreed to by C.H. Spurgeon, Baptist Confession of Faith, Westminster Confession of Faith etc.
Essentially every Christian group on planet Earth admits to this basic fact about the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God written on the heart in the OT - starting in Eden.
Consider paying attention to the "Bible details"
Sin existed before the giving of the law on stone Law, but law in the form of God's WORD existed before "writing on stone" thus SIN existed before the formal "writing on stone". . That is why death reigned. It reigned over them that were under the old covenant "obey and live" and "Sin IS transgression of the LAW".
As for "obedience" to LAW, and COMMANDMENTs and STATUTES before the "writing on stone" of God's Word well - Genesis 26 says it all.
Genesis 26:3...and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
"cursed is very one who does not obey" is the Old Covenant according to Galatians 3.
Genesis 2 "for the in day you eat - you shall surely die".
Adam was in "purest form" of the Old Covenant agreement. "Obey and live" ... this is irrefutable.
Bible says this --
See Romans 4:15 - "where there is no Law there is no SIN" Romans 5:13
See Romans 5:12 - there WAS SIN starting with Adam. 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world
See 1 Tim 2:14 - SIN starting with Eve
See Genesis 4 - SIN even at the time of Cain
see 1 John 3:4 - SIN IS (by definition) "Transgression of the LAW" even in the NT
These are basic Bible facts agreed to by C.H. Spurgeon, Baptist Confession of Faith, Westminster Confession of Faith etc.
Essentially every Christian group on planet Earth admits to this basic fact about the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God written on the heart in the OT - starting in Eden.
Consider paying attention to the "Bible details"
Genesis 26:3...and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
hint: "sin is transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4
you said
Rom 4:15 "where there is no Law there is no transgression" (sin)
1 John 3:4 "sin IS transgression of the LAW"
The point remains. Obviously.
This not a case of "imputed" for Adam because there is no prior-sinner in the line of Adam to impute sin. As you already admitted.
Rather ADAM himself "sinned" and by definition "sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4
But even more to the point Rom 4:15 "where there is no Law there is no transgression" (sin)
(1 John 3:4) "sin is the transgression of the law."
Genesis 26:3...and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
read the text.
Indeed he did --
God says that he "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
So then - no taking God's name in vain - for Abraham
No worship of false Gods' for Abraham
No bowing down before images for Abraham
No dishonor to parents for Abraham
You know... the usual.
To CAIN it is said "SIN is crouching at your door" - what sin... eating of the wrong fruit.
Joseph says "I cannot commit this SIN against God" -- what sin? "leaving Canaan"??
Your model denies even the most basic Bible teaching of almost every Bible scholar on planet Earth.
Genesis 2 "for the in day you eat - you shall surely die".
Adam was in "purest form" of the Old Covenant agreement. "Obey and live" ... this is irrefutable.
Bible says this --
See Romans 4:15 - "where there is no Law there is no SIN" Romans 5:13
See Romans 5:12 - there WAS SIN starting with Adam. 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world
See 1 Tim 2:14 - SIN starting with Eve
See Genesis 4 - SIN even at the time of Cain
see 1 John 3:4 - SIN IS (by definition) "Transgression of the LAW" even in the NT
These are basic Bible facts agreed to by C.H. Spurgeon, Baptist Confession of Faith, Westminster Confession of Faith etc.
Essentially every Christian group on planet Earth admits to this basic fact about the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God written on the heart in the OT - starting in Eden.
Consider paying attention to the "Bible details"
Genesis 26:3...and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
hint: "sin is transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4
you said
Rom 4:15 "where there is no Law there is no transgression" (sin)
1 John 3:4 "sin IS transgression of the LAW"
The point remains. Obviously.
This not a case of "imputed" for Adam because there is no prior-sinner in the line of Adam to impute sin. As you already admitted.
Rather ADAM himself "sinned" and by definition "sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4
But even more to the point Rom 4:15 "where there is no Law there is no transgression" (sin)
(1 John 3:4) "sin is the transgression of the law."
Genesis 26:3...and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
read the text.
Indeed he did --
God says that he "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
So then - no taking God's name in vain - for Abraham
No worship of false Gods' for Abraham
No bowing down before images for Abraham
No dishonor to parents for Abraham
You know... the usual.
To CAIN it is said "SIN is crouching at your door" - what sin... eating of the wrong fruit.
Joseph says "I cannot commit this SIN against God" -- what sin? "leaving Canaan"??
Your model denies even the most basic Bible teaching of almost every Bible scholar on planet Earth.
In Hebrews 8:6-12 the Bible says it is Jesus speaking at Sinai and the OT says the one speaking at Sinai is "LORD" - YHWH
One God in three persons - yet Jesus is the one speaking in the OT as YHWH.
1 Cor 10 "4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a Spiritual Rock which followed them; and the Rock was Christ."
Hi @BobRyan,
Sin is a principle that dwells within totally depraved man...it boils down to independence from the Lord.
As such, this element of independence could exist within the heart of man even when there is no law to discover it...until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.
Notice the words, "Until the law..." This is speaking of a period of time in which the law was not in effect to show man his sin...which does not preclude that sin did not then exist in the heart of man. Man sinned in that he was independent of the Lord, but he didn't transgress...sin was not imputed to him, because the law, not being present, didn't point him out as being a sinner. Because man was not aware because of the law of his independent attitude. As soon as the law showed up, sin was imputed to man...it became transgression before the Lord because man was actually violating a commandment that he was aware of in his independence of the Lord.
Now I certainly believe that the law of the Lord is something that exists in eternity and that sin is also the transgression of that law. However, man, in the time from Adam to Moses, was unaware of this eternally existing law and therefore in violating it he was not transgressing...he was not trespassing where there was a "no trespassing" sign. He was trespassing in a place where someone had taken the sign down...and therefore God did not hold him as responsible for his law-breaking. And yet death still reigned in that time (from Adam to Moses), because the wages of sin is death, whether it is actual trespassing when there is a sign (transgression) or whether it is trespassing without a sign (simply sin). Because the eternal law in the heavenlies would dictate that it is a violation to trespass even when there is no sign (man should have realized that the presence of a fence was enough evidence that he shouldn't go over it)...nevertheless when standing before the judgment seat of Christ, the one who trespassed without a sign will not be held as responsible for his trespassing as the one who trespassed when there was a sign...as that is only fair in our eyes and our just God would not see it any differently.
A few more responses in this same post, to other posts:
I choose to believe Stranger on this one.
To impute means "to credit to one's account." That is the definition of impute.
Cults are formed when people begin to redefine words in the Bible so that their people perceive the Bible differently than it was intended to be perceived.
Sin is a principle that dwells within totally depraved man...it boils down to independence from the Lord.
As such, this element of independence could exist within the heart of man even when there is no law to discover it...until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.
Notice the words, "Until the law..." This is speaking of a period of time in which the law was not in effect to show man his sin...which does not preclude that sin did not then exist in the heart of man. Man sinned in that he was independent of the Lord, but he didn't transgress...sin was not imputed to him, because the law, not being present, didn't point him out as being a sinner. Because man was not aware because of the law of his independent attitude. As soon as the law showed up, sin was imputed to man...it became transgression before the Lord because man was actually violating a commandment that he was aware of in his independence of the Lord.
Now I certainly believe that the law of the Lord is something that exists in eternity and that sin is also the transgression of that law. However, man, in the time from Adam to Moses, was unaware of this eternally existing law and therefore in violating it he was not transgressing...he was not trespassing where there was a "no trespassing" sign. He was trespassing in a place where someone had taken the sign down...and therefore God did not hold him as responsible for his law-breaking. And yet death still reigned in that time (from Adam to Moses), because the wages of sin is death, whether it is actual trespassing when there is a sign (transgression) or whether it is trespassing without a sign (simply sin). Because the eternal law in the heavenlies would dictate that it is a violation to trespass even when there is no sign (man should have realized that the presence of a fence was enough evidence that he shouldn't go over it)...nevertheless when standing before the judgment seat of Christ, the one who trespassed without a sign will not be held as responsible for his trespassing as the one who trespassed when there was a sign...as that is only fair in our eyes and our just God would not see it any differently.
A few more responses in this same post, to other posts:
I choose to believe Stranger on this one.
To impute means "to credit to one's account." That is the definition of impute.
Cults are formed when people begin to redefine words in the Bible so that their people perceive the Bible differently than it was intended to be perceived.
Last edited:
Two comments:
1. Your first sentence is incorrect.
This is what you said:
It is true that for the unbelieving sinner, he is required to obey the law perfectly in order to be saved, from conception into eternity (Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48).
An unbeliever is not saved. He could obey the law all he wants to, if he does NOT believe in God, he's not going to be with God. And how does one obey the law to eternity??
2. In the 6th paragraph, you say:
for the believer in Christ, obedience is not a requirement
Everything you said was correct (after the first paragraph) but did you have to include that sentence?
Jesus said we are to be obedient. Why say the opposite?
John 14:15
15"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments."
Mathew 7:23
23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Hi JbF
Please post my entire previous reply.
This sounds like I don't believe Jesus is LORD.
I do agree with you, except for "God the Father is Lord".
God the Father is LORD.
Similar threads
